Twitty, Holloway Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere

At about 1:30 a.m., court papers say, an intoxicated Holloway left with van Der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers. Several of Holloway's friends saw her in the car with the youths and asked her to get out, court papers say, but she did not.

Natalee Holloway was eighteen and intoxicated of her own free will. If this ever did come to trial, which I doubt it will, certain individuals from Alabama will be compelled to testify that Natalee Holloway was acting in a manner that night wholly inconsistent with the image portrayed on Fox News. They will also be forced to testify truthfully that, in all likelihood, this had nothing to do with any date rape drug scenario and it was not the first or only occasion Ms. Holloway exhibited such behavior, including previous evenings on the trip, as well as at gatherings back in Alabama.

The record would likely also reflect that Natalee had every opportunity to remove herself from the vehicle in question and elected to not do so, again, of her own free will. Said record will also likely come to reflect that Natalee had a troubling side to her which, while one or both of her parents may or may not have been aware of it, certainly others in the family were.

"The next hours of Natalee's young life were marked by torment, terror and debasement," court papers say, describing an imagined sexual assault. "Natalee has not been seen or heard from since entering Deepak's car with Joran."

A lawsuit has apparently been filed lacking any substantive facts, based solely on the single-minded and misguided hyperbole we've been witnessing on Fox News.

None of this goes to whether Joran Van Der Sloot is guilty of any crime, or not. And that's a question I can't claim to answer. But the lack of a charge or conviction in a tragic case does not give anyone the right to harass another individual or family with what amounts to a frivolous lawsuit.

Some of the information upon which I base my opinions above is information I have had for a significant period of time from unimpeachable sources more than close to the Twitty family and the case. Confidentiality agreements have prevented me from sharing that information here and I continue to honor those agreements.

However, were this to become a legal matter, I would feel compelled to report the truth as I know it, including providing my sources so that they could be subpoenaed to testify under oath in open court.

Based on all knowable facts at this time, I suspect any judge or jury would likely conclude that Natalee Holloway could just as easily have fallen victim to an unknown perpetrator on the way back to her hotel, including another Mountain Brook resident, taken her own life as a result of emotional issues complicated by intoxication, died accidentally from drowning, or been murdered by Joran Van Der Sloot.

As I doubt any evidence will point to one scenario over another, it's likely the lawsuit should simply be dismissed.

Update: I should point out that I believe the news of the lawsuit being served was broken at the JVDS Blog. And you will want to check in there today as I have reason to believe there will be additional information forthcoming.

Comments

[Lindsey]

Can you imagine the number of slander lawsuits that would be out there if Moxie were correct? The legal system would be a complete mess. Free speech, baby, it's a wonderful thing!

[xxx]

It is so irritating to try and talk to people who are irrational.

If Beth is sued for slander then any statements she made must be false in order to qualify as slander.

Even if in the Dutch system the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the statement was true that would still mean that Beth would have to be given access to all statements and records in order to show the truth of her statements.

Under US slander law it is patently impossible that she would be convicted and most likely impossible that a judge would ever let such a claim see the light of day.

Even if the police were too fully exonerate the suspects, e.g. say they had found conclusive proof of innocence, which would be very different than closing the case for lack of evidence Beth cannot be RETROACTIVELY accused of slander, because when she has made her statements all suspects were and are officially suspected of rape, murder and kidnapping.

There is no gray area in this discussion, so I guess I am done talking nonsense with people who are delusional.

[Lindsey]

Aaahh...Moxie is bored. Or maybe you feel stupid? I warned you that you were wrong and to give it up. Apparantly being wrong makes you bored. You have a GOOD DAY too. Living in your own little legal world.

[val]

I know quite a few 18 year olds that do not drink. They do not need to, because they are perfectly happy with themselves the way they are.

[DoorMart]

YES....NEW YORK STATE DOES HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE!!

Since the suit was filed in NY...and the papers were served to the VDS while they were in NY....the state of New York has jurisdiction in the case.

Brillant freakin' move by John Q Kelly!

And, those lawyers appearing on TV need to hire a good paralegal to do research for them...egad. It took me just a few minutes to research this jurisdictional issue

This case will be heard in a NY state court. Jurisdiction was established when the suit was filed in NY and the VDS being stupid enough to visit NY and get served.

The party is over in Aruba

[Lindsey]

I know quite a few 18 year olds that do not drink. They do not need to, because they are perfectly happy with themselves the way they are.

Your right. I guess what I should have said is that many 18 year olds drink and none of them deserve what happened to Natalee. Especially since her drinking was legal. We don't know if she was slipped something prior to agreeing to going into the car with these men. And yes, they are men not boys. Saying boys makes them seem young and innocent which they are not. If something was slipped to her, then she DID NOT get into the car of her own free will.

[tester]

hmm...pardon my ignorance, but whats to keep Joran from getting back on the plane and heading out and never coming back?

I'm not sure how or why the party is over for him or Aruba. I don't see why a civil suit would extend outside of our borders.

[xxx]

I wouldn't, Joran can get on a plane, leave the country and there will be a default judgement against him, in effect, convicting him of the civil charges that were laid.

I think this is exactly what he will do, but he has been given an opportunity to tell the public and world the whole truth, without any possible penalty of jail...so, I would wonder, if he is innocent, if he has nothing to hide and if there is a huge amount of secret proof of Beth's lies and Natalee's secret past...then why would he want to do that?

Why wouldn't he answer the suit and state his case?

[COLUMBO]

This case will be heard in a NY state court. Jurisdiction was established when the suit was filed in NY and the VDS being stupid enough to visit NY and get served.

Next step-see what ramifications an existing lawsuit has in N.Y. to a party seeking employment with the Dutch consulate....could it prevent PVDS' attempt at getting diplomatic immunity?

[Mongo]

If the Twitty's and Holloway's win the civil suit by default because of the non-compiance by the VDS's I wonder can Aruba use that precident to press on with charges?

Where ViVi?

[ArubanWarlock]

Well, if that's the case. I sure hope that the Van der Sloots go to Court though. It's the only way they can prove their innocence or their guilt. Maybe through the American system they can finally prove who the liars are, the Van der Sloots or the Twitty/Holloways.
I don't know anything about legal systems, but if this is the only way the case can be resolved then let the Van der Sloots go to court, regardless what Beths real motives are, or how frivolous this lawsuit is. This case was going nowhere anyway.

[tester]

He has not so far, why would he now?

[Kevad]

There are two types of jurisdiction, personal and subject matter. Personal jurisdiction may be proper if they were served correctly, subject matter jurisdiction will depend. The grounds for subject matter jurisdiction should be stated in the pleadings but usually can be met if the tort occurred in the state or if the defendants have contacts or possibly when they have certain property (rights) within the state. Generally, attorneys and parties cannot be sued for slander or defamation based upon allegations in a complaint. Pleadings can be verified (sworn under oath) or unverified, most states now allow unverified pleadings. Depositions could be taken out of state but there are hoops to go through. There is limited ability to compel out of state witnesses to state court to testify. The defendants could move to quash the summons if they are improper, they could specially appear to file a motion to challenge jurisdiction, fight venue, or make a motion to move the case to Federal Court. There are many moves that could occur. The biggest question right now would be to see the basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

[bama-born]

Has the lawsuit been made public (or is the complaint available on the internet)?

[xxx]

Kevad,

You sound like you know what you are talking about...

Assume for a minute that the case meets whatever jurisdictional criteria there is, can the plaintiffs as part of the discovery process depose the FBI agents who were involved in the case? Can they gain access, via the FBI, documents relative to the criminal case, rather than having to get them directly from the Aruban LE, which I suspect is a legal impossibility given the case is officially still open.

Any idea?

[prayn4natalee]

Here is a link that will help you better understand how JQK was able to file the civil suit in NY.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/159381D6-E3A3-4B65-B24392EF8F06E693/104/308/214/ART/

[COLUMBO]

Warlock:

They've had every opportunity to prove innocence...they've had access to any media that will listen, and all they come up with is "Someday I will tell what happened but right now I'm not ready to do that." They could easily have gone onto Dr Phil with Beth if they are innocent. The more face time they or anyone else (i.e. Cohen) has gotten has made it more of a debacle. Nobody has come out and said anything about what actually did take place. They are not dumb. If they were truly innocent and concerned about image, etc, then they could very easily have cleared this up long ago. With a defensive posture they've chosen instead put the burden of proving a crime on the Holloway/Twitty family. That says alot.

[bluesky]

Which FORUM DOCTRINE John Q. Kelly used for this international civil case is a mystery.....

1. The "damaging acts" were committed outside New York State. So there is no connection between the act and NY State--> New York State is not the Forum delicti.
2. The Twitty's don't live in NY State --> New York State is not the Forum actoris.
3. The defendants live in Aruba --> New York State is not the Forum rei.
4. The Van der Sloots could contest New York State jurisdiction on the basis of Forum Non Conveniens --> No connection of the "damaging acts" to NY State and no assets of the Van der Sloots in NY State means that NY State is an inconvenient and improper Forum.

[Bitsey]

Nobody from Mt. Brook can be forced to testify. This is a civil suit. Witnesses are all voluntary.

[bluesky]

Personal Jurisdiction:

I don't think this Doctrine would apply in this case, because this case is about "damaging acts" which occured outside the USA. This is an international case.

The "damaging acts" have no connection to New York State.
Th Van der Sloots have no assets or property in the USA. What assets are the Twitty's going to seize if they win??

The court should i.m.o. declare itself non competent of hearing this case on the basis of Forum Non Conveniens.

[tester]

I think the paper will end up in the hotel garbage and the Sloots will fart as they get on the plane for the trip home.

[xxx]

No, witnesses are not voluntary, dear god, what is wrong with people. If being a witness in a civil suit was purely voluntary then how would anyone ever be able to interview or depose HOSTILE WITNESSES???

If a witness refuses to be deposed they are served with a subpoena and then they have to provide whatever legal reason they have to get the subpoena quashed.

[Jane]

Good gawd, Dan. We haven't even been able to read the entire pleading yet.

[Observer in Charm city]

Three problems with the lawsuit (aside from the obvious hyperbole and lack of evidence):

Forum non convenienes, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

Never mind conflict of laws...............

[J.C.]

Let me clear up some of the possible problems.

What will be interesting is whether the New York Court finds in personam jurisdiction over Joran and Paul. Personal jurisdiction over the Holloway’s is not an issue because the plaintiff submits to the jurisdiction of a court by filing an action in that court. There is U.S. Supreme Court case law (Burnham v. Superior Court) which states that the mere intentional presence in a forum state (here New York) by a non-resident (Joran, Paul), who gets personally served while physically in the form, is enough for jurisdiction over that person, even as to matters unrelated to the purpose of the visit.

You are right about forum non convenienes, the court may simply refuse to excercise jurisdiction because of this.

Also, if this case does get beyond the procedural issues, another interesting conflict of law issue will arise in seeing which jurisdiction’s (Alabama’s or Aruba’s) tort law the New York court will apply to the tort issues in the complaint (false imprisonment, battery, negligence on part of Paul). Most states apply the law of the place of the injury to tort issues (this of course would be Aruban law). However, New York applies the law of the jurisdiction with the ‘most signifigant interest’ to a tort issue. That may be found to be Alabama tort law (the place where Natalee and her parents lived). The point is on this issue the court could go either way.

[nancyjcrichton]

Posted by: prayn4natalee | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 01:56 PM

I appreciate the link to the NOLO site, but these cases are all involving intra-state cases. This particular one is international where the incident and defendants reside out of the US. Can you provide a link that sets forth jurisdiction requirements in that type of case?

Is there a copy of the Complaint on line anywhere? If you know of a link could you post it please. Thank you. Moey

[J.C.]

You need to understand in U.S. court it does not matter if you are a resident of a foreign country, if you have been properly served, while physically present in a state, the courts of that state will most likely be found to have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident (foreign country or different state). See this case:

U.S. Supreme Court case law (Burnham v. Superior Court) which states that the mere intentional presence in a forum state (here New York) by a non-resident (Joran, Paul), who gets personally served while physically in the form, is enough for jurisdiction over that person, even as to matters unrelated to the purpose of the visit.

[bluesky]

J.C.:

I would like to read Burnham v. Superior Court. Do you have a link?

Are there other comparable cases?

What about Forum Non Conveniens case law?

[prayn4natalee]

link to suit papers

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/hway/hwayvds21606cmp.html

[JC]

Read away:

Burnham link
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/495/604.html

Doctrine of forum non conveniens
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/45/carn.html

[Hobo]

Probably the most infamous civil suit that 'went nowhere' is the O J Simpson case. Nicole and her friend are dead and the 'Orange Juicer' plays golf every day. The murders couldn't be pinned on him, so her family filed the civil suit and won, but has had trouble collecing. I followed that trial as close as any other red blooded American and still can't recall if DNA testing was done on the glove and blood. If you ever want to read Chris Dardens perception of how the murders happened, you will be for a real treat. His writing style and the step by step process of how 'the Juice' slashed Nicoles and her friends throats, is eerie.

On the whole, sometimes these suits are not just to make money, but hopefully gain a little info that can be used later on.

[26ANDCOUNTING]

Innocent till proven guilty!! Until Joran is charged he is innocent therefore not a criminal or rapist or murderer etc.!!

[JC]

26and counting,

Maybe you do not understand this is the civil case we are talking about, the complaint does not accuse anyone of murder.

[26ANDCOUNTING]

Sorry I should of been specific I was commenting regarding the slander issue and felt that if he has not been convicted you cannot call him a criminal or rapist.

[Robin Tyra]

I want to know why Dan keeps harping on the fact that Natalee WILLINGLY got intoxicated and WILLINGLY got in the car?

Has he never in his life heard of a woman willingly getting drunk and willingly going somewhere with a man or men and then UNWILLINGLY being raped or murdered?

Apparently, even though sanctimonious Dan will NEVER ADMIT this, but he believes Natalee being drunk and leaving with the boys is a MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE to her being raped and murdered, if that is what happened.

She might have killed herself out of emotional distress? And her body just then coincidentally disappeared without a trace and the 3 last people seen with her started a series of lies and ended the night cleaning ants out of the car she was last seen in.

Yup, that is about as likely as the WMD that were supposedly all over Iraq having been mysteriously transported to Syria without any satellite intelligence to support it.

In other words, it is totally implausible, just like just about ever other theory Dan has floated since the family cut him off.

Posted by: xxx | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 08:25 AM

Because, dingbat, her mother has always claimed her daughter was *kidnapped.* Get it, dumbcluck? This wasn't a child taken against her will. It was a big ole' party gal, on the cusp of 19. A young woman, but no child. She left voluntarily. End of the story as we know it.

[truthbetold]

blah blah blah more bs from the twittys...more money and fame seeking...beth doesn't know what to do with herself since she isn't on tv 24-7 anymore and sadly she has dragged dave and others into her fiasco too. how can she evern be referred to a "grieving mother" I haven't seen any grief from this woman or sadness for her daughter ....all I have heard is me me me me ....this case has been more like a celebrity publicist trying to keep their clients dirty secrets from coming out.......the twitty machine rolls on.....

[Lindsey]

Because, dingbat, her mother has always claimed her daughter was *kidnapped.* Get it, dumbcluck? This wasn't a child taken against her will. It was a big ole' party gal, on the cusp of 19. A young woman, but no child. She left voluntarily. End of the story as we know it.

Who's the dingbat? Adults get kidnapped too. Just because she was 18 years old DOES NOT mean she could not have been kidnapped. Are you a child? That is the only reason I can think of the this ridiculous post.

[xxx]

I don't think her mother has "always" claimed she was kidnapped, she has always claimed she was sexually assaulted.

And if you cannot comprehend the idea of someone leaving voluntarily and then, when they later want to leave, they are prevented from doing so, which is a CRIME, then there is really not much hope for you.

If you want to play dumb about why Dan spent several paragraphs rehasing Natalee's voluntary drinking and voluntarily leaving with the suspects and his super secret confidential information that is going to blow Natalee's image out of the water and now concludes that it is JUST AS LIKELY she committed suicide as she was murdered then you just keep on playing dumb.

Or, maybe you aren't playing?

[A Guy]

Because, dingbat, her mother has always claimed her daughter was *kidnapped.* Get it, dumbcluck? This wasn't a child taken against her will. It was a big ole' party gal, on the cusp of 19. A young woman, but no child. She left voluntarily. End of the story as we know it.

Ummm...sorry Robin...you are wrong....

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE NH LEFT VOLUNTARY...and damn sure not you. It is highly possible that NH could have been drugged as there are unconfirmed...let me state that again..unconfirmed reports she was led out by Deepak by the arm. I do not know if that is true or not.

Since you don't have any facts why don't you refrain from stating something as fact when you obivously dont know. And neither does anyone else.

[mike]

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE NH LEFT VOLUNTARY...and damn sure not you. It is highly possible that NH could have been drugged as there are unconfirmed...let me state that again..unconfirmed reports she was led out by Deepak by the arm. I do not know if that is true or not.

Since you don't have any facts why don't you refrain from stating something as fact when you obivously dont know. And neither does anyone else.

"34. A short distance from C&C, several of Natalee's friend saw her in the car with the three young men. Her friends implored Natalee to get out of the car. Natalee did not heed their warning."

There ya go! That is straight from the Civil suit.

[Sweetie]

FACT: Last people to see her ALIVE were Joran and the brothers, period. That much we do know, correct??
That is pretty much all we know as FACT, quit slamming her mother for trying to find the truth, the real truth. And Dan, quite frankly, I really STILL can't figure out your 380 on this one.

[A Guy]

"34. A short distance from C&C, several of Natalee's friend saw her in the car with the three young men. Her friends implored Natalee to get out of the car. Natalee did not heed their warning."

There ya go! That is straight from the Civil suit.

>>Mike...agreed it is from the suit but it DOES NOT adress whether Natalee left willingly or not.

Next??

[Another Guy]

FACT: Last people to see her ALIVE were Joran and the brothers, period. That much we do know, correct??

Another FACT: All of the last 3 who saw Natalee alive are proven liars due to the ever changing stories told to ALE.

[paul]

Posted by: paul | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:22 AM

That's just it - don't you think that the Twitty/Holloways would anticipate all of this?! Then, WHY, if they are trying to hide the truth, would they open themselves up to this? I would like to hear one logical reason why.

Posted by: KayCee | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Why does JQK claim it was a contigency plan that just happened to occur. He states emphatically that the Twiity and Holloway had "been very good" - i.e said nothing because they knew nothing. He knows whose big mouth is his cases worst enemy.

First.....Federal Rape Shield laws prevent the VDS lawyers from getting too much into Natalee's past (of course there isnt a past sex history). These rape shield laws also cover civil suits. Only similar prior activity is admissible (which doesnt bode well for Joran). VDS lawyers would have to offer proof Natalee got drunk all the time and ran off w boys all the time (which isnt true).

US rape shield law is all but null and void thanks to Kobe.
US Rape shield will not apply to Aruba. In case you forget the civil suit allows evidence not brought in criminal. Like the evidence of former sexual liasons by plaintiff against Kobe.

Oh..and remember when Joe Manamma said he had "people everywhere watching Joran"? Yup he was right!

Joe Momamma ratted himself out when cornered. A tyro defender would love to have Joe on the stand. His threats alone in the Enquireer and Pittsburg papers - made before non involved witnesses area a whole new suit for the sloots.

Posted by: DoorMart | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 12:29 PM

[mike]

FACT: Last people to see her ALIVE were Joran and the brothers, period. That much we do know, correct??
That is pretty much all we know as FACT, quit slamming her mother for trying to find the truth, the real truth. And Dan, quite frankly, I really STILL can't figure out your 380 on this one.

That is the only fact we know. But I don't think people are going to stop slamming Beth until her and the media quit bashing Joran and the brothers without any evidence that her daughter is even dead.
Remember in the begging the media bashed Joran because he drank and gambled, and Beth and Natalee's friends said that Natalee was not drinking, that she was a responsible teenager!

[jackson80]

i expect JQ to subpeona and take depositions from folks in the USA who run blogs and have had contact and dealings with Aruba Today and Janet Refro.

[A Guy]

Here is thing that confuses me...if Joran and the Kalpoes are truly innocent of all wrongdoing then why after 8-9 months have they not come out stated for public consumption everything they know about what happend that night on the island? Seperate from that, when all the searches were going why did they not help?

My point is that their behavior is not consistent with someone who is totally innocent.

[xxx]

Joran was bashed because his own web site listed his hobbies as physical flings, because he had nothing but photos of him drinking, partying and passed out and the web site and messages read like something out of Playboy.

I have never seen any similar photos of Natalee, and as far as I am aware, she was not a regular drinker in Alabama.

NO one from MB ever said she was NOT drinking in Aruba, only that she was drinking responsibly, which was probably not the case and that she was a responsible teenager.

The two are not mutually exclusive, responsible teenagers can go crazy on a vacation and behave in an uncharacteristic and irresponsible manner, which is most likely what happened.

Joran on the other hand, had a long track record of irresponsible behavior, and according to the civil complaint of sexual assault as well.

I hesitate to state the obvious, but there is no comparisson.

[Sweetie]

FACT: Last people to see her ALIVE were Joran and the brothers, period. That much we do know, correct??

Another FACT: All of the last 3 who saw Natalee alive are proven liars due to the ever changing stories told to ALE.

Posted by: Another Guy | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 04:21 PM

Sorry, you're right
FACT: ALL THREE LIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, they ALL changed their initial stories.

[Althor]

QUOTE: "JQK [did you mean "joke"? It would be more appropriate]also mentioned last night that Dave Holloway's co-author was instrumental in setting up the media interview in New York for the Vandesloots. Was this whole thing a set up from the beginning just to get them to New York???"

Posted by: nancyjcrichton | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 09:48 AM

Yes Nancyjcrichton, the amount of "coordination," and “precision” it took to serve the Van der Sloots in the “James Bond” manner he was “crowing” about like a cock ( he may not be a rooster, but he sure is a dick!) to Greta’s “clucking” on her show yesterday, points strongly to this being a “set-up,” and not only was most likely Dave’s co-author involved in the ruse, but I wouldn’t put it past ABC, the network were the Van der Sloots supposedly came to be interviewed at, to be in on the conspiracy, especially in light of the way the media behaves nowadays as amply shown by the “spectacle” made in the White House briefing room by NBC News Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory and his fellow “piranhas” about the Cheney hunting accident recently, since obviously if ABC wanted the interview it would have been easier to send their newsperson to Aruba than to pay for the Van der Sloots to come to New York. Though nothing will come of this “publicity stunt” meant only to put Beth back in her narcissistic, beloved, “limelight” for another three months every night, it is a shame that the Van der Sloots were so naive as to believe in anyone or anything from America at this point. Really sad!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUOTE: “Althor I own a clothing manufacturing company, I will be more then willing to make that T-SHIRT and also even charter a private plane to take that WITCH to Pakistan.”
Posted by: nelson | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 09:51 AM
Are you threatening to kidnap her?
Posted by: Skye | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 09:59 AM

Thank you Nelson. A very kind and generous offer.

And no Skye, Nelson has just been kind enough to offer to do a service to humanity, and provide the means to “exorcise” this vengeful, spiteful, Banshee of an evil spirit, that keeps coming back to haunt our television screens like Spielberg’s “Poltergeist” (“she’s back... “) for months at a time, once and for all.

All Nelson has to do is send her a “T” shirt showing the most “offensive” of the Danish Mohammed cartoons on its front and back, along with a plane ticket to Pakistan, and tell Beth that there are camera crews ready to roll, and journalists and photographers waiting to interview her in Karachi. I bet you she will dash madly to the Airport, mowing down anyone foolish enough to get in her way: between her and a camera!!!

LMAO!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

QUOTE: “I dont know who you are , Nelson.
What have you got against the south?”
Posted by: Skye | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 10:06 AM

Hmmm, well, let me see now Skye. Let me count the ways. What could possibly anyone have against the “South” (KKK not withstanding)???

Well, how about the “Kingdom of Mountain Brook” with its “Doll Houses” all with neatly trimmed lawns, and its “prim” teenagers of Sainted fame, and a Highschool about which you can say ‘a la Poe’: “Why the deafening silence? What dark secrets lie hidden within its somber walls?!?!”

Or, how about three “inbred,” “Good Ole’ Boys,” backwood Governors willing to boycott and unjustly penalize an entire Island nation, only to be able to jump into the Beth “Media Circus” bandwagon for the boost they perceive the “publicity” will give their “politcal aspirations”?!?!

Or how about all the intelligent, learned remarks that have been pouring out of every trailer park down there onto the Internet, threatening to “lynch” and murder J2K and Paulus Van der Sloot?!?!

Or the arrogant, swaggering manner in which so many of them behaved in Aruba: destroying endangered Green Sea Turtle nesting grounds, disrupting breeding egrets, making an ecological disaster on the island, polluting it en masse with discarded bottles and beer cans; demanding locals give them free meals and free booze, and then sitting down at the bars getting drunk instead of “searching;” bawling and complaining to the locals who had the kindness of washing their dirty linen at no charge, for accidentally “mixing up” some of the laundry ( imagine, what an outrage! How can they tell whose jockey-shorts it is without the brown stain in the back?!?!), and generally behaving in a rude and uncouth manner.

Saying that hurricane Katrina was an Aruban “smokescreen” to keep their beloved trailer park “Drama Queen” Beth from her “rightful” place at the head of the news.

Shall I go on?!?!

Ha!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

QUOTE: “No. Dan does not believe Natalee deserves justice, because she willingly drank, willingly got intoxicated and willingly left with Joran.”
“In Dan's sick mind, though he will never say this outright, she did get justice, she got just what she was asking for and what she deserved.”
Posted by: xxx | Friday, February 17, 2006 at 12:23 PM

Dear XXX ( sounds like “Moonshine” don’t it, and I ain’t meaning the name),

That whining argument about “...that nothing she could ever had done the night she disappeared justifies what happened to her” (whatever that may be, due to the lack of evidence) is getting old!!!

Whatever fate befell Natalee, it was brought upon her by her "loving" mother Beth's lack of "parental discretion," in the first place, and by Natalee's lack of common sense, and stupidity, in the second!

Don't jump into a pit full of ravenous lions to begin with, and then you won't have to blame the "bad" lions for having eaten you alive!

And I'm tired of hearing about how regardless of how sluttily she could have been behaving, or drunk and doped she could have been, or with whom she chose to leave alone, yet nothing should have happened to her, because she had the "Right"!!!

You only have the "Right" to something, when you, or others around you can defend that "Right"!

It is absurd to argue that because you had the "Right" to walk scantily dressed with more gold chains around your neck than Mr.T, in the middle of the night, alone, down an alley in "Gangland" past a whole bunch of thugs, drinking, doping, and reveling, cozing themselves by a steel drum full of garbage set on fire, that you shouldn't have been robbed, mugged, abused, raped, and murdered! Of course you shouldn't have been, but you were foolish enough to expose yourself to that situation in the first place!!!

So as much "Right" as you may have had to walk by there "undisturbed," unless you went by there in a tank, or armed and with a German Shepperd Attack Dog with you, or were accompanied by a Police Patrol, your "Right" doesn't mean diddly-squat! Use common sense. Natalee and her mother should have!

And now, to finally put this “Cirque Macabre” in perspective, and quench all this madness, in as far as my humble abilities allow me to, let me tell you what most likely happened to Natalee that night, taking into consideration that old adage, that “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one.”

What most likely befell Natalee is as follows:

Natalee Was partying at the Carlos & Charlie's (some say wildly). She had been drinking, possibly using drugs.

She left with J2K of her own free will, and refused twice to go back to her Hotel with her classmates. Once at the C the other refusing to get off the Kalpoe’s car when her friends flagged it down. She left allegedly shouting out of the window in glee: “I love Aruba,” as the car sped away.
The Kalpoes dropped Joran and Natalee at the beach. They necked, engaged in some foreplay, sex, whatever.

It was getting late and Joran had to leave. He had school the next day. Joran left.

Natalee waded into the water to pee, wash herself (gargle?), to clear her head from the drinking, or simply to enjoy one more dip in the “Paradisiac” waters of her dream vacation spot before leaving for home in only a few hours.

She went in a bit too far, got caught by a strong undertow and dragged out to sea. She struggled but eventually drowned. The currents dragged her body miles away from shore before any search for her took place. Marine sea-life recycled her remains back into the ecosystem. All traces gone. End of story.

Can we move on now, or until when are we going to dredge every clogged-up toilet for Natalee or news of her?!?! I guess not. With these new developments, we have another guaranteed “news cycle” of three months of more uninterrupted Natalee Holloway extravaganza coverage. Move over Neil Entwistle, Beth is back!!!!!!!

Althor