Nieuws
R. De Vries: Holloway-zaak opgelost
![Icoon Justitie](http://images.fok.nl/fp/icons/icon_justitie1.jpg)
''Deze informatie kan in belangrijke mate bijdragen aan de oplossing van het mysterie rond de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway'', aldus justitie. De zaak-Holloway werd in december gesloten, maar het OM is sindsdien doorgegaan met het onderzoeken van relevante informatie.
'Opgelost'
Op zijn eigen website zegt De Vries de zaak al opgelost te hebben: ''Misdaadverslaggever Peter R. de Vries lost zondagavond 3 februari, vanaf 21.30 uur in een speciale, extra lange uitzending op SBS 6, de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway op waar Nederland, Aruba en de Verenigde Staten al bijna drie jaar van in de ban zijn. De Vries is afgelopen week teruggekeerd van Aruba, waar hij de justitie-autoriteiten heeft ingelicht over zijn onthullende bevindingen. Het Openbaar Ministerie is direct een nieuw onderzoek begonnen.....
De oplossing van de zaak is volgens De Vries te danken aan een ingenieuze verborgen camera-actie, waar door het programma van Peter R. de Vries maanden aan is gewerkt. SBS 6 zendt zondagavond vanaf 21.30 uur een speciaal ingelaste, extra lange uitzending van bijna twee uur uit, waarin de ontknoping van dit verdwijningsmysterie gedetailleerd uit de doeken wordt gedaan.
Update 18.01 uur
Weblog VKmag claimt een open dir te hebben gevonden op de site van De Vries waaruit is op te maken dat Joran van der Sloot de dader is.
Inmiddels is dat van de site weggehaald, maar VKmag heeft het bewuste stuk on-line gezet. Erin te lezen staat onder meer: ''The confession of Joran. This must be something that you dreamt of?'' De Vries zegt dit tegen Hans Mos, degene die op Aruba belast is met het onderzoek.
De tekst van het gesprek tussen de twee gaat daarna verder over Joran en het feit dat hij schijnbaar goed zijn mond wist te houden. Hans Mos: ''Clearly it's the first time that he's confessed to somebody, this is his coming-out. It's perplexing that he could hold his tongue for two and a half years''
Peter R. De Vries (wijnincident)
In het gesprek met de Officier van Justitie heeft de Officier het over een 'chain of events' waar tot nu toe niet voldoende bewijs was. Met de bekentenis van Joran is dat er nu wel. Het gaat dus om een scenario waarin het een tot het ander heeft geleid. Er wordt echter geen één keer in het interview verwezen naar dingen als moord, dader, wijze van ombrengen.
De officier zegt aan het eind:
"If Joran is lying he hangs himself in an incredibly stupid way"
Dit geeft dus aan dat de bekentenis Joran vrijpleit van moord, maar wel helderheid geeft over wat tot de dood van Holloway heeft geleid.
Wel zegt Peter:
"Hij heeft er geen slaap om verloren hé"
Dit geeft aan dat er zich iets heeft voor gedaan. waarover hij heeft gelogen en 2,5 jaar zijn mond over heeft gehouden, maar er laconiek over kan doen. Dit zegt natuurlijk veel over de psyche van Joran.
Mijn veronderstelling:
Natalie is verdronken tijdens het zwemmen, out gegaan na teveel drank. etc.
Joran weet hoe het gegaan is, maar was/is in de veronderstelling dat hij dit niet kon vertellen omdat hij de schijn tegen had (Hij was de laatste met wie ze gezien was) en heeft zijn mond gehouden. Dit scenario zullen we zondag te horen krijgen.
Echter geen moord...
Wees blij dat hij tenminste geen programma's maakt op de zak van de belastingbetaler.
Als je hier problemen mee hebt, moet je problemen hebben met alle journalisten en alle media die aankondigen dat ze morgen of in het weekend een spectaculaire, onthullende reportage hebben over dit of dat. Heb je dat? Ik vermoed van niet. De Vries werkt niet alleen, hè.
Ik had hem nog even eerder toegevoegd, maar herhaal hem nog maar even...
Het leuke in dit geval voor jou is, dat het OM ter plaatse het aangevoerde materiaal van de Vries blijkbaar overtuigend genoeg vond om de zaak te heropenen (zie het persbericht). Nu is er dus een politie/overheidsdienst -waar je blijkbaar zoveel vertrouwen in hebt boven de Vries- die het materiaal van de Vries belangrijk en goed genoeg vindt. Wat nu? foto
Hoe dan ook: iemand met een beetje verstand laat dat allemaal rustig even links liggen als zo'n persoon een zaak weet op te lossen.
Jup. Ben dan ook apetrots op je ;)
Peter R. De Vries is natuurlijk geen heilige, maar om nou te zeggen dat het een nietsnut is die achter slot en grendel moet vind ik onbegrijpelijk.
Windows Media Player
Realplayer
Dat lijkt me aannemelijker na de opmerking dat als Joran liegt hij een groot probleem heeft.
wat een vies mannetje.. bah
Vooral dat promo praatje weer, sbs foto :
Dus moet (je moet niet) hem credit geven.
Veel aannemelijk lijkt mij dat Joran weet wat er gebeurt is, zelfs nalatig is geweest met betreft het voorkomen of het melden van het overlijden van Holloway. Maar er niet direct de hand in heeft gehad. Waarom zou de Officier van Justitie anders zeggen:
"It's perplexing he could hold his tongue for two and an half years"
Als er sprake zou zijn moord, dat zou dat helemaal niet perplexing zijn, dan zou het logisch zijn om te zwijgen. En dan niet 2,5 jaar, maar zijn hele leven.
Niets duidt op een bekentenis met betrekking tot moord.
1. De Holloway zaak is (nog) geen moordzaak maar een verdwijningszaak.
2. Uitlevering naar de VS gaat niet gezien Aruba niet echt Amerikaans grondgebied is.
3. Het is nog de vraag of de Vries' 'bewijs' rechtmatig verkregen is en bruikbaar in de strafzaak tegen van der Sloot.
woningmarktcijfers
En voor die joran die heeft toch een behoorlijk probleem want Amerika zal om zijn uitlevering gaan vragen daar kan je donder op zeggen. En verborgen camera kan misschien hier niet als voldoende bewijs worden gezien maar in Amerika WEL. Dus joran zal dan ook zeker in Amerika worden berecht en zal daar ook zijn straf (vast levenslang) uit moeten zitten.
woningmarktcijfers
Zijn pa zei gewoon dat ie zijn bek houden moest, en dat deed ie.
Ze hebben geen bewijs jongen, gewoon je mond houden, kom je vanzelf vrij.
Mooi dat tie nu eindelijk de bak indraait foto
We hebben het over een mogelijk opgeloste moordzaak tegen een sensatiezoeker die zijn geld verdient met zaken oplossen. Dan maar een opgeloste moordzaak, lijkt me fotofoto
Dus jij hebt een trieste reactie!!! foto
Hij heeft duidelijk een gespleten persoonlijkheid.
Echter dit is een verdrinkingsscenario. Het kan van alles zijn. Mijn punt is des te meer dat niets in het interview er op duidt dat Joran een bekentenis heeft afgelegd over zijn moord op Holloway. Niets voor niet meldt de Officier, dat als Joran liegt, hij een "groot probleem heeft"
Dit kan 2 dingen betekenen:
Joran beschuldigd iemand anders
of
Er is een ongeluk gebeurt en hij heeft nagelaten om het te melden, en daarna besloten zijn mond te houden.
Ik zie niet hoe hij een groot probleem heeft als hij zou hebben gelogen over een beschuldiging van iemand anders.
Hoe kan dat op zo'n eiland als aruba .
1) in het crematorium
2) de zee opvaren en dumpen met stenen aan het lichaam ( maar is riskant )
3) ergens van de rotsen gooien of in een oude Goudmijn dumpen .
4) waar nog niemand aan gedacht heeft >>> in de riolering
Afvalwater:::
Het huishoudelijk afvalwater wordt in een gedeelte van Oranjestad, de ‘tourist corridor’ en een gedeelte van San Nicolas afgevoerd via de riolering. Het grootste gedeelte van het geproduceerde afvalwater wordt verwerkt in beerputten en septic tanks. Ongeveer 30% wordt verwerkt in de rioolwaterzuiveringsinstallatie (RWZI) te Bubali en ongeveer 6% wordt ongezuiverd in zee geloosd.
dit vond ik op de site van Aruba .....
er zijn beerputten en septic tanks waar nog nooit in gezocht is .
ook wordt 6 % zo rechtstreeks via een pijp diep en een eind weg in zee geloost
lees verder op Natalee Holloway (in the rebound).
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4222253&page=1
Onrechtmatig verkregen bewijsmateriaal mag nooit gebruikt worden in de rechtzaal.
Lutser, overigens is menneke bende gij een spraakgebrek of zit je op het vmbo? foto
-Als je Kashmir (LedZep) draait, en hij begint erover dat het een slechte cover van Puff Daddy is, mag je hem een doodschop verkopen...-
Integendeel, van mij mag ie goed de lul zijn en zwaar bestraft worden.
Peter is een makend mannetje ja.
Ik heb vaak genoeg met hem te maken en dan is het een heel naar mannetje met ontzettend veel kapsones.
Zelfs John de Mol is veel vriendelijker en socialer in de omgang.
Grapjas foto
Peter maakt zijn excuses en ze leffden nog lang en gelukkig . foto
Ik niet!
Mogelijk zit hier een kern van waarheid in...
De tv-show van Paul en witteman, met Peter R de Vries en Joran was gespeeld (nep), met als hoogtepunt het glas wijn.
Waardoor de beelden de hele wereld rond zijn gegaan...
Dit wijn incidident is afgesproken om het verhaal meer kracht en daad bij te zetten.
Hoofdverdachte bij Peter R de Vries is Joran...Ook zat Peter met zijn vragen Joran in het nauw te jagen
Zo moest het dus lijken, zodat andere verdachte zijn uitgesloten bij Peter R de Vries.
Maar de werkelijke theorie is dat een andere de dader is, alles was als afleidingsmanoeuvre.
Om zo de werkelijk dader, mogelijk de vader van Nathalie, als dader aan te wijzen, met juiste bewijzen.
Bovengenoemde theorie gaat rond, en zal een mogelijkheid kunnen zijn.
De enige manier waarop iemand zich kan verlullen op undercover cam is als ie het plaats delict omschrijft, of aanduid waar het slachtoffer zich bevindt waarna via forensisch bewijs achterhaald kan worden wie de dader was.
En zelfs dan kan Joran er nog met medeplichtigheid af komen.
Mijn gok is dat ie voor de 3e keer opgepakt wordt, en voor de 3e keer weer wordt vrijgelaten.
Maar goed het had ook prima zonder dat wijn incident gekunt , en dan was Joran niet overal wereldwijd negatief in het nieuws geweest.
Maar de rest van deze theorie vindt ik wel aannemelijk.
wat ik vooral opmerkelijk vind, dat zo'n tape gebruikt kan worden als bewijs... tegenwoordig kan iedereen, die een beetje kennis heeft van wat software, een filmpje manipuleren....
Slotje.
Hoewel ik er doorgaans geen traan om laat dat we geen zenders als SBS kunnen ontvangen zou ik het nu wel eens willen zien...ben toch wel nieusgierig... foto
Ga jij nu maar weer snel wildplassen!
De jongens en evt de vader zijn gaan kijken of het lijk al verteerd is . evt in een beerput op septic tank ,riolerings pijp oid of als ze van de rotsen is gegooid ergens onderaan de rotsen .
Peter is ze op spectaculaire wijze gevolgd en is zo achter de verblijfplaats van het lijk terecht gekomen .
ze maken het wel erg makkelijk
Hij is echt een held.
To boldy go where no one has gone before.
Wat een moed!
Ik geloof wel dat hij iets gevonden dat aannemelijk gemaakt kan worden voor de rechter.
Wat ik niet geloof zijn al die andere pipo's die nu ineens ook 'van alles' en nog wat vinden. Die gaan gewoon lekker zitten speculeren om mee te kunnen liften op de hype. Allemaal ongefundeerde bullshit braken ze uit. Files uit directories gehaald, noem maar op.
Bah, dat soort mensen ZIJN geen mensen meer. Dat zijn narcisten. Mensen die alleen aan zichzelf denken. En om dat te kunnen doen verbergen ze zich anoniem achter het front van een weblog. De wereld zou een heel stuk beter af zijn zonder dit soort mensen.
Hulde aan Peter R. de Vries, en de dood aan weblogs van sensatiebeluste pipo's.
Er is wel een mens dood, en het leven van alle mensen eromheen is verpest. Inclusief het leven van de dader zelf. Dat zijn TRIESTE dingen, helemaal niks om juichend over te doen.
Edit:
Hopen nu dat hij het zo handig heeft gedaan dat zijn bewijs niet ontvankelijk verklaard wordt.
Hopen ook dat het OM niet zo beschaamd is dat ze er alles aan gaan doen om Peter R. de Vries' bewijs ontvankelijk te LATEN verklaren.
Edit:
[of misschien toch maar niet, ik ben vast niet de enige die nu flashbacks krijgt naar wat er toen gebeurd is]
Joran ontmoet gozer in casino, twee raken bevriend, gozer komt erachter dat t DE Joran is, gaat naar Peter toe. Samen initieren ze een val voor een bekentenis enJoran trapt erin.
T zou gaan om een ongeluk, en Joran heeft t lijk verstopt.
Van der Sloot heeft zijn bekentenissen gedaan aan een Arubaanse man, die hij heeft ontmoet in het Holland Casino in Nijmegen. Vervolgens is er een vriendschap onstaan. Onduidelijkheid is er hoe deze man in contact is gekomen met Peter R. de Vries. In gesprekken tussen deze Arubaanse man en van der Sloot heeft hij toegegeven dat Holloway is omgekomen door een ongeluk. Hij heeft vervolgens het lichaam zelf laten 'verdwijnen'.
Op het 'wegmaken van een lijk' staat 2 jaar celstraf volgens het Nederlandse strafrecht, zonder dat er sprake is van voorlopige hechtenis.
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics.
uit deze foto blijkt alweer een leugentje
Natalee Holloway (in the rebound).
Joran had ook een blauw oog op de ochtend dat Natalee vermist werd, ook waren zijn schoenen verdwenen en loog hij over de schoenmaat. Er moet daar iets zijn gebeurd (ruzie, zatte taferelen) waardoor Natalee (per ongeluk, daar ben ik van overtuigd) is overleden. Vervolgens heeft hij zijn vader ingeschakeld en hebben ze het lijk gedumpt. (zee?!) De vader is in ieder geval ZEKER bij de zaak betrokken. Dat zie je ook aan zijn houding en al zijn uitspraken.
Mark my words, het scenario hierboven ligt heel erg dicht bij de waarheid. foto
PROCES VERBAAL
We, Roland Ramiro TROMP and Clyde Anthony Burke, respectively inspector and sergeant first class, with the Korps Politie Aruba and attached to the section Often Occurring Crime District 2, state the following.
On June 23rd 2005, at approximately 14.30 hours, as a suspect, a man was interviewed who stated his name was: Paulus Antonius Petrus Johanna van der SLOOT, born in the Netherlands on February 15th 1952, judge (common court) and living at XXXXXXXX number XX on Aruba.
Before the interview the suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT was informed that he was under no obligation to answer.
The suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT has asked if his council Mr. A. SWAEN could be present at this interview and this was also requested by his council. This request was denied. His statement in dutch was transcribed by us, the reporting officers and goes as follows:
“To you question what I can declare with regards to me being arrested as a suspect of accessory to murder, manslaughter and
robbing someone of their freedom with death as the result, I can state the following. I find this totally ridiculous and absurd.
To your question what level of ridiculousness this reaches, I can state the following. I am of the opinion that my arrest reaches the highest possible levels of ridiculousness and absurdity.
To your question whether I picked up Joran on the 30th of May 2005, in the early morning hours, I can state the following. I have previously stated that I had picked up Joran on Sunday May 29th at approximately 23.00 hours near Mc Donalds. Subsequently I woke up at that Monday morning at approximately 05.45 hours. In the hours between I had gone to sleep and I did not hear Joran leaving or hear him return home. 05.45 hours is the normal time for the alarm to go off and I wake up. The children I wake up at approximately 06.00 hours. I awakened Valentijn, Sebastian and Joran.
To your question whether it was difficult to wake up Joran on that Monday morning, I can state the following. It is always difficult
to wake up Joran.
To your question whether it was more difficult than usual to wake him up, I can state the following. I had not noticed anything special.
To your question whether Joran went to school on Monday May 30th 2005, I can state the following. I cannot precisely recollect
whether Joran went to school that day. It is possible that he did not go to school that day.
To your question whether Sebastian and Valentijn went to school that Monday, I can state the following. Yes, they got onto the bus and went to school because in the period that Anita was away they took the bus every day.
To your question whether I wait to see if they get on the bus, I can state following. Yes, I stay and watch.
To your question how it then is possible that I had not seen Joran get onto the bus, I can state the following. Of course I see the children get onto the bus and that also is true for Joran. But unlike Valentijn and Sebastian who went with the bus every day Joran didn't go with the bus once or twice during that period. But I do not remember exactly which days he did not go with the bus. It could be that it was that Monday. Most likely I informed the bus driver that Joran would not be going with the bus. A clue to the fact that Joran did not go to school that Monday could be that on Tuesday I insisted that he went to school that day.
To your question whether on the occasions that I informed the bus driver that Joran would not be going with the bus Joran stayed home or whether I drove him to school myself, I can state the following. I did bring Joran to a place at the open air cinema. He got onto the bus there. That was the first morning that Anita went to the Netherlands. I at that time did not inform the bus driver that Joran would not be going with the bus. Instead I was very angry with Valentijn and Sebastian for letting the bus drive off without Joran. Sebastian and Valentijn however where under the impression that Joran didn't need to go to school that day.
To your question when Anita left for the Netherlands, I can state the following. I cannot remember exactly but I think it was the Tuesday or Wednesday before that Monday the 30th of May that she departed for the Netherlands. Anita was in the Netherlands for seven or eight days.
To your question whether I picked up Joran during the period between May 30th 2005 and June 9th 2005, I can state the following. It is possible but I cannot remember whether I did. I did pick up Joran from school from time to time but whether it was in that time-period I cannot remember.
To your question if I tell you all the things I did on that Monday the 30th of May 2005, I can state the following. I went to work.
The exact time I cannot remember but I think it was approximately 08.00 hours. I can also remember that around 10.00 hours I went to the C.M.B. bank. There were long cues at the bank so I left without having made any transaction and went back to work. I left my workplace at approximately 15.00 hours. I arrived at the bank at approximately 15.30. I had gone to the C.M.B. bank that is situated in Noord.
To your question whether I went to the bank without stopping or going anywhere else, I can state the following. I at least cannot
remember having been anywhere else. I think I went directly to the bank. At the bank I talked to Ruth DIJKHOFF. At the bank I deposited the money that Joran said that he had won in the “Free Tournament in the Holiday Inn” on the 29th of May 2005. It was approximately 500 Aruban guilders. Joran had given me 100 guilders because he had taken over my place in the
tournament.
After depositing the money I went home. I cannot exactly remember what time it was when I got home. I think it was 16.15 hours. According to me both Rita and Joran where at home. Whether Valentijn and Sebastian where also there that Monday I cannot remember anymore because Valentijn and Sebastian quite often went over to a friends house during that time-period.
Whether I went with Joran to eat at a fast food restaurant that afternoon I cannot remember. I can only remember that while Anita was away I went and ate with him once. I don't think it is likely that we did that day because I left work at approximately 15.00 hours.
To your question what I did after 16.15 hours, I can state the following. I think I dropped of Joran off at the “Racquet Club” at
approximately 17.00 hours. I could have been later though. I cannot exactly remember anymore.
To your question whether I saw Joran enter the “Racquet Club”, I can state the following. If I drop off Joran he normally walks inside. As far as I can remember he did do that at this occasion too but I do not know for sure. I can also remember he had told me that he was going to enter the “Free Tournament” at the Wyndham. I had told him that he could always call me if he wanted to be picked up to go home. He said that he would do this or that he would hitch a ride home with someone.
To your question if I can remember what Joran had with him when I dropped him off at the “Racquet Club”, I can state the following. Every time that he goes to play tennis he has a sports bag with tennis equipment with him. I cannot visually play back in my own mind whether I actually saw him carrying the bag. Sometimes Joran just went to work out at the “Racquet Club”. On those occasions he would not have his tennis bag with him.
To your question on which days Joran followed tennis lessons, I can state the following. According to me he certainly has them on Monday. And there is one more day that he has lessons but I cannot remember what exact day that is. Occasionally we have a joint lesson with Jerry.
To your question whether we can ascertain whether I had dropped off Joran in order for him to go to a tennis lesson, I can state
the following. I took hm there to either follow a tennis lesson or to go to the gym. Whether he indeed took a tennis lesson or went to the gym I cannot say because after I had dropped him off, I went home.
To your question whether Joran on Monday May 30th 2005 hadn't been complaining about pain in his feet and legs and whether
he had told me that he would not take a tennis lesson, I can state the following. Joran occasionally has complaints like that. He sometimes also complains about back-aches. Whether he complained that Monday, I cannot remember.
To your question whether I can remember if Joran complained of pain in his feet or legs during the period from May 30th 2005 to
June 9th 2005, I can state the following. I can remember that between the time Anita went to the Netherlands and the time he was arrested Joran did complain about pain in his legs and feet. I cannot remember however if he specifically complained about that on Monday.
To your question whether I asked him what could have caused the pains, I can state the following. No, I did not ask him. He complained about these kinds of pains from time to time.
To your question whether I knew what the causes were of these pains, I can state the following. I assumed that they were general pains of being tired/sore. I had not attributed them to a specific reason.
To your question whether I subsequently went to the “Racquet Club” to pick up his sports bag that he left behind there, I can state the following. I cannot remember. To the best of my recollection I did not return to the “Racquet Club” after I dropped off Joran.
I am not 100% sure of that. But if I had gone back to then it would not have been to pick up the bag alone but also to bring Joran home. At approximately 18.00 on Monday May 30th 2005 I would have been home. I cannot remember anymore if I picked up Sebastian and Valentijn or whether they were dropped off at our home because during the time Anita was away there was not fixed structure to that. I think I did eat dinner with Valentijn and Sebastian.
Sebastian and Valentijn went to bed at their normal bedtime of approximately 21.00 hours. I myself turned in for the night at approximately 23.00 hours. Whether I at that moment checked to see if Joran was home I am not sure.
To your question whether I often checked to see if Joran was in, I can state the following. I do check that from time to time. But not always.
To your question why I, knowing that Joran was supposed to call me if he needed to be picked up, did not check to see if he was home, I can state the following. If I did not check whether he was home then that was because I at that moment in time did not think about that.
To your question whether I than would have called Joran to ask him with whom he would drive home, I can state the following. It could be that I called him but I do not remember whether I did. I of course call Joran regularly. With the question whether or not he needs a lift home. Whether that happened on Monday May 30th 2005, I cannot remember.
To your question what I did on May 31st 2005, I can state the following. Around 02.00 I was awakened by the barking of my dogs and Valentijn who had awakened before I woke up. I heard a lot of noise, I got dressed and walked to the gate. There I saw a police car and two police officers. There were also several other cars, among them a van and I think about 10 people or so. Most of these people turned out to be Americans but there were also a few Arubans, among other Charles CROES and two people with a cord around their necks. I think they were from a hotel. A police officer asked me if he could talk to me and he told me that a girl had gone missing and that my son had been seen with this girl. The group as a whole seemed agitated . One of the Americans told me that it was about a girl my son had met at “Carlos & Charlies”. I told him immediately that it could not have been my son because he had played in a “free tournament” at the Holiday Inn during the afternoon and that I had picked him up at 23.00 hours at “Mc Donalds”. I then went to Joran's apartment and to my surprise and to my anger he was not in his apartment. I then called him on his mobile phone. He immediately answered his phone. I asked him where he was and the told me he was at the “Wyndham”. That he was at the “Wyndham” did not surprise me at that moment. He was supposed to be playing in the “Free tournament” there. That could also be a clue that I indeed did not see him after I had dropped him off at the “Racquet Club”. I told him that people wanted to talk to him with regard to a girl that had gone missing and that I would come to where he was. I then got into the police-car and the whole group drove over to the “Wyndham”. I walked towards the casino that was locking up. I could not see Joran there and I again called him on his mobile phone. He answered and told me that he was at home now.
To your question whether I told Joran who were with me, I can state the following. I cannot remember whether I did.
A few people in the group showed the picture of the missing woman to several members of staff at the casino. At least one of the women said that she had seen the girl a few hours earlier in the company of a tall boy. Serious discussions took place but I suggested that we should go to my house again because that was where Joran had gone to.
To your question whether, in front of the casino, I had mistakenly thought someone was Joran and pointe him out, I can state the following. I cannot remember whether I did. Maybe I did see a tall boy and from a distance mistook him for Joran and walked into that direction.
I once again entered the police car and the whole group followed me to my house. When we arrived there I found Joran together with Deepak, leaning against the car. I asked Joran why he did not stay at the Wyndham and he said that he must have misunderstood me. He also told me that the neighbors had told him to turn the music down because they had complained. He also told me that he had been to the “Raddison”. According to me Charles CROES was the first person who started asking Joran questions. Joran said that he had met a girl at “Carlos & Charlies” and that he, Deepak and Satish had dropped her off at the Holiday Inn. Joran said that Sunday afternoon he had had met a girl at the Holiday Inn and that he had helped her when she was sitting at the poker table. The girl had lost $350 and he had helped her win back $150 (a few days later when Joran had seen a picture of Natalee and her friends in one of the free US newspapers, he said that it was the girl on the extreme right of that picture that he had helped win back the money. That girl was not Natalee). Natalee did belong to a group of American girls that had been pushing him to come over to “Carlos & Charlies”. According to Joran he told them that he couldn't go to “Carlos & Charlies” because he had to go to school the next day. He also told them that he, without my knowing about it, arranged to be picked up by Deepak around 24.00 hours and that he did go to “Carlos & Charlies”.In “Carlos & Charlies” the missing girl Natalee, invited him several times to come dancing with her. He told that he did dance with her and that she had asked him to take a so-called “Body-shot” off her. He also said that she wanted to go with him in the car and that they drove in circles around “Carlos & Charlies” for a few times and waived to some friends of Natalee. Natalee was absolutely sure she wanted to stay in the car. I saw that he then addressed a few of the Americans. He asked if Natalee's parents where among them. One of the people said he was Natalee's step-father. He asked if the step-father would please go away for a second and told the rest of the people that they had been kissing in the back seat and that he had fingered the girl.Joran also said that the girl wanted to see the sharks and that because of that they had gone to the north coast of the island even though Joran had told her that there were no sharks there. Joran also said that the girl had said that her mother was the sister of “Hitler” and that she said she wanted to go to Austria. He also said the girl had asked him if Deepak and Satish were his slaves because the parents of the girl owned a plantation and that black people worked there like slaves. I am not sure whether he said this to the Americans or to the police-officers in the car. There was uncertainty for a moment whether Joran and the group of people where talking about the same girl. I can remember another name was mentioned next to Natalee's name. I thought the other name was Kathleen. When Joran however was shown a picture of the girl, he said that it had been this girl that he had made out with. He recognised her especially by her eyes and the mouth. After Charles CROES had spoken Joran others started interrogating Joran. That did not always go very subtle. Joran was accused and inconsistencies in his story where pointed out to him. I at that moment in time though that those inconsistencies where futilities and that he was seriously pressured from several people. I told the Americans in the group to restrain themselves, and told them they did not have any jurisdiction here, and that they should act civil. I then addressed the police officers and told them they should take charge of the situation. I told Joran and Deepak that they should make their statements to the police-officers rather than to the Americans. At some point one of the Americans cursed out Deepak by calling him an “asshole”. I at that moment stated that they had gone too far and that Joran and Deepak should make no more statements to the Americans. One of the police officers indeed stepped in and said that this was no way to go forward. I said we should focus on finding the girl and not to insult people. I said to the Americans that they should realize they are in another country and they should act politely. One of the Americans suggested going to the “Light House” because according to Joran they had been there when they were driving around the girl. One of the police officers said that this was useless. I happened to agree with him. At that moment I wanted for Joran to go to his apartment and I wanted to return to bed. Joran however said that we should try our best to help and find this girl. One of the Americans suggested that we should go the Holiday Inn to take it further from there/view the situation. A little bit reluctantly I got back into the police car with Deepak and Joran. The police officers were also somewhat tired of the situation and said that the Americans should report the girl missing. We then drove to the police-station in Noord and the police-officers consulted with the watch-commander. They also changed cars. I understood that the watch-commander had no objections to the police-officers going to the Holiday Inn together with Deepak, Joran and myself. When we arrived at the Holiday Inn there was a dark coloured man there standing with folded arms who later introduced himself as WILLIAMS from the F.B.I. This man immediately took Joran separately and had a short talk with him. I also went over to WILLIAMS and asked him what his function was. Then he told me he was with the F.B.I. so I returned to the the police officers and asked them whether they knew that F.B.I. officers were present there. They told me they did not know anything about that. I briefly talked with a member of staff from the Holiday Inn who told me there was only one camera and that this camera was pointed in the direction of the front desk. I also understood it was not certain whether or not that camera was actually working. One of the police officers had a lengthy discussion with WILLIAMS in the back of the lobby. I understood from the officer that he had informed WILLIAMS of the existence of the so-called “Beach bums”. Deepak also told a girl behind the front desk that he had seen that a security guard dressed in black had walked over to the girl after they had dropped her off. The security guard had been in the possession of a “walkie talkie”. The girl behind the front desk said that it could not have been one of their security guards because they wear white shirts. There still was fierce discussion but one of the Americans wanted to shake my hand to express that he was sorry of having been so hurt full and agitated. I at that moment refused to shake that hand because I was still angry about their behaviour which prompted another American to say “talk about being civil”. A woman with long black hair was continuously talking on her mobile phone. I understood that she was informing the news media in the US to the fact that a girl had gone missing. I briefly talked to Charles CROES who had been driving the mother of the missing girl. He said that he didn't need to know anything more from Joran. He said that he had looked into Joran's eyes and understood from that
HERE THERE IS A SECTION MISSING
moment we got into the police car after I had shook every ones hands, all except the long black haired woman who was still on the phone. WILLIAMS told me that I should count on the fact they they would want to talk to Joran again. The mother of the girl by that time had already left. At least I did not see her anymore. We were dropped off home by the officers. It was starting to get light.
I woke up Valentijn and Sebastian and I also said to Joran that he had to go to school even though he wasn't in the mood to go. I know that I insisted that he should go. A reason for that might be that he had already not gone to school on Monday. I then left for work. I think it was approximately 7.30 hours when I called the headmaster of the International School. I had told him that Joran had not slept all night and asked for him to be understanding just in case Joran was feeling sleepy. About 8.30 hours I was called by one of the guards in the hall of the justice building and he told me that Jan van der Straten wanted to talk to me. I took Jan van der Straten up to my room and there Jan van der Straten asked me if I could pick up Joran from school and bring him over to the police-station in Bubali. Jan said that it was wisest to do this immediately. I called the headmaster and told him that I would be coming to pick up Joran. The headmaster told me that Joran was resting in what was called the doctors office and asked me at what time he should wake him up. I told him that I would be at the I.S.A. at approximately 10.00 hours. When I arrived at the I.S.A. Joran was already up. I then waited with Joran until the headmaster was free because he was in a meeting with the school counselor. We then briefly talked to the headmaster, at that time we talked about the fact that the girl had gone missing, that the girl had had a lot to drink and that Joran should have kept a closer eye on the girl and that he should have made sure that the girl safely had gone into the Holiday Inn. The headmaster and myself told Joran that he should have acted more responsibly. We then departed for the police station in Bubali where we arrived at approximately 11.00 hours. Jacobs and Kelly took down Joran's statement. Joran was speaking in Papiamentu and that was translated by the officers into Dutch. I was there when Joran made his statement. We made a few changes in the concept with regard to factualities instead of observations. At approximately 14.00 hours Joran signed his statement and we went to lunch in Mc Donalds or Wendy's, which of these fast food restaurants we ate I cannot remember anymore. Then we went home. Both of us were very tired because we had not slept a lot that night.
I cannot remember what I did when I got home. I think that Joran went to bed and that I worked a little in the garden and then started preparing dinner. I informed Anita about what had taken place. That night I went to bed early.
To your question what I did on June 1st 2005, I can state the following. That was the day Anita was supposed to come home from the Netherlands. According to me the alarm clock went off as usual at 05.45 hours and at 06.00 hours I woke up the boys and they all got onto the bus. According to me that day was a normal day. I cannot remember anything special about that day. I think I went to work as usual and got home at approximately 16.30 hours, we ate dinner as we normally did, I was at the computer and at approximately 20.00 hours we picked up Anita. I think that Sebastian came with me to pick up Anita.
To your question whether I had a talk on June 1st 2005 with Joran, Deepak and Satish about the case of the missing girl. I do not remember if this was on the 1st of June 2005. I did talk a lot with Deepak, Satish and Joran, from the moment they were interviewed as witnesses until they were arrested. We of course read the newspapers, saw the news and talked about it. I also was in almost daily contact with Jan van der STRATEN. I did not doubt the truthfulness of their story for one second. When we talked about the girl, we discussed what could happen if the girl would not re-appear. I was under the impression that the boys assumed that she would re-appear sooner or later. Af course we also discussed what if the girl did not re-appear. From what little information I got from Jan van der STRATEN, I got some hope that the girl was seen after she was dropped off at the Holiday Inn. He did not say this in so many words but I took that as an explanation as to why the boys weren't asked to give further statements to the police.
To your question when I had noticed, that boys were asking a lot about what would happen with missing girl would not re-appear or if she would be found dead, what would happen then, whether this did not make me wonder why they were asking this, I can state the following. According to me it was not the boys who brought this up, but I brought this up. I was usually the one who steered the conversation towards the girl.
Why did I steer the conversation towards the girl? I did this because I was getting worried. I was getting worried for the girl and also for the boys. Because of the fact that they had been the last to be seen with the girl they would no doubt come back to them. I however did not doubt the validity of their story for one moment.
Comment reporting officer: At 20.05 hours the assistent district attorney, inspector first class J.C. SAMBO informed the suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT that he would be held for questioning at the police station in Noord on which the suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT responded that he would resist the incarceration because it was a completely insane and absurd action.
Suspect finds it highly questionable that this is only happening to make his son make statements that are beside the truth. Suspect did remark that he is willing to tell us everything he remembers if this somehow gives clarity into the case of Natalee Holloway gone missing, but that this could best be done in the capacity of a witness.
To your question whether I spoke to the boys at home on Wednesday June 1st 2005 and about what we talked, I can state the following. I don't exactly remember anymore what days I spoke to the boys. I only know that I talked to the boys a lot. I did not want Joran to be out of the house for as long as the girl was still missing. Because of that a lot of Joran's friends, including Deepak and Satish came over to visit us. We then often talked aboutthe girl. We were following the reports in the newspapers, on the radio and on television.
To your question how it happened that I found a lawyer for Joran and the two Kalpoe brothers, I can state the following. Looking at the facts I had to take into consideration that Joran, Deepak and Satish could at some point become suspects. If that was the case I wanted the proces to go as smoothly as possible, in order for them to be released as soon as possible. Again, I still believed their story implicitly. If they already had lawyers no time would be waisted when they were arrested. The lawyer could be there very quickly, so that the questioning could being immediately and no time would be wasted. In reality I was trying to facilitate the process as much as possible.
You are telling me that I have stated that I believed the story but still took preparations with regard to a lawyer and I have explained them the entire procedure of being arrested and being detained, why? To this I can say the following. I have previously said that due to the fact that the boys could possibly be the last people who had been seen with the girl, this fact could be sufficient to cause them to be seen as suspects. As said before, I wanted to facilitate this process. Part of that was making sure the boys did not panic because they were unfamiliar with the procedure. I especially wanted to prevent that they would make statements that were untrue. In the situation they found themselves with a police and judicial apparatus that was under enormous pressure that was not unthinkable.
To your question why I would think they would panic if they told their story, the one I believed, or whether I had reasons to be suspicious of their story and whether I know more about the case than I, my son Joran, Deepak and Satish did not tell when they made their first witness statements, I can tell you the following. I have told you before that I believed the boys story, that I had no reasons to doubt it, I also did not get any clues that made me doubtful and thus I assumed that the statement they gave to the police were the correct ones. My fear was more in the desire to score of the police force. I was afraid that the boys would be entrapped/tricked into making a statement that was not correct. I have told them on more than one occasion that they should count themselves lucky that they were with the three of them and that the interviews should not be hard because they were telling the truth.
To your question as to how good a liar Joran is, I can tell you the following. In the past Joran lied. About money that he had stolen from us. We have talked about this extensively and it was also discussed at the youth psychologist Dr. XXX XXXXXX, with whom he had several talks about his growth into adulthood. I had the feeling he had made a clean breast of it/fresh start. I at least did not assume I had to doubt everything he said.
To your question what I now think after it came out that Joran is making untruthful after untruthful statement and what I can state about that, I can state the following. I can not make a judgement about this. What I have understood that Joran is the one who broke open the case.
To your question what I mean when I said that Joran broke open the case, I can state the following. Joran's lawyer has told me that it was Joran who changed his statement. Because of that the case is now broken open and now the truth can come out.
To your question whether Freddy ZEDAN came to our house out of his own accord or whether I had invited him, I can state the following. According to me Freddy phoned my wife after he had been questioned by the police. According to me he and his girlfriend came over to see my wife and he told what he had stated to the police. I was busy in the kitchen and did not hear everything Freddy was saying. Only at the end of the conversation I joined them. My wife and I were angry at Joran, because he did not tell the truth from the beginning. My wife planned to confront Joran with Freddy's statements. That night we were going to have a meeting with Mr. A. CARLO, this was a previously planned meeting. My wife called Freddy again and asked him if he could tell his story again to Joran's lawyer. At first he didn't want to come because he had an exam the very next day but in the end he and his parents came over. He then told the story he knew to Joran's lawyer. I am convinced that Mr. CARLO did this with the best intentions possible.
Comment reporting officers: At approximately 21.15 hours the interview of the suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT was concluded in mutual understanding with the suspect. The suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT will be enabled to read the complete proces-verbaal and to make comments on it.
P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT
After the suspect P.A.P.J. van der SLOOT had read his statement, he stated to us that he would persist in it and signed it.
Of this, we, the reporting officers, on our oath of office, have made this proces-verbaal, closed and signed in Noord on June 23rd 2005.
The reporting officers
R.R. TROMP C.A. BURKE
fotofoto
Walgelijke aandachtsgeile kutvent, foto
bron: home.nl
Wat een verborgen camera al niet kan doen.
Is er al bekend of Joran aangehouden is?
Als Peter Rochel DeVries onweerlegbaar bewijs heeft zou Joran al achter de tralies zitten.
Als Peter Rochel DeVries, bewijs achterwege houd vanwege kijkcijfers mogen ze hem ook gelijk oppakken voor belemmering van de rechtsgang.
I.A.W. Morgen op FoK! headline niews dat Joran achter de tralies zit of Peter Rochel DeVries loopt te wauwelen.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Laboro te salutante
http://content.vkmag.com/gallery/jorandidit/index.html
of is die printscreen een hoax? foto
Edit: Blijkbaar is iemand het al wel opgevalllen,:+ het werdt ook op rtl boulevard uitgezonden en lieten ze ook die printscreen zien en toe zei de kwal Ukmag in plaats van VKmag whaha ... nee niet grappig foto
Om te kunnen reageren moet je zijn ingelogd op FOK.nl. Als je nog geen account hebt kun je gratis een FOK!account aanmaken