Natalee Holloway Search To Be Resumed

Not sure what to make of this, Father of Natalee Holloway, Dave Holloway, intends to resume the search for Natalee's remains by concentrating on deeper water. This on the heels of the re-arrests of the three primary suspects. Also, Joran Van Der Sloot should be in Aruba within days, a judge has approved his transport.

ORANJESTAD, Aruba - The father of missing American teenager Natalee Holloway will relaunch a search for evidence of her remains in waters off Aruba, he said Thursday after police re-arrested three suspects in her 2005 disappearance.

While authorities searched the sea to depths of 330 feet, Dave Holloway told The Associated Press that he believes his 18-year-old daughter was thrown into deeper waters - a belief based on talks with a police official and a private forensic expert.

Holloway said a private boat owner is providing divers, sonar equipment and the ability to map the ocean floor.

"It's like this: we've searched all the land areas ... It's common knowledge on the island that if someone were to dispose of the body, it would be out in the ocean," he said by telephone

Holloway said he would alert police on the Dutch Caribbean island if anything is found.

Comments

[Princess D]

"There is definately enough evidence if we could get past the politics and Daddy Van der Sloot."

Yeah? Such as?

Ironclad innuendo and open/shut supposition?

****************************************************************************************************

There is physical evidence and there is circumstancial evidence; I am referring to the latter...and many guilty people have been convicted and encarcerated due to circumstancial evidence. In the perfect world, physical evidence of Natalee would have been found a long time ago (sad, but would have ended the plethora of conflicting statements, lies, numerous "stories")....FACT: The Van der Sloots would not allow search of their property(and a search warrant was NEVER obtained; read that as connections with law enforcement)....ask yourself this, If Natalee's family landed on the island within 24 hrs of her disappearance, obtained the names of the 3 suspects without help of the police in mere hours....do you really think that was a coincidence????

Finally, as an officer of the court, PVDS, should suffer disbarrment (has he?) and be charged with obstructing justice....we all want the TRUTH to come out, my money is on J2K, JMHO....

[Princess D]

Intended to state one other issue....absolutely agree that allowing these teenagers to go to Aruba, although chaperoned (not very well) is bad judgment on a parent's part. If one chooses to leave our country, one is then subjected to the laws of the country one visits; no argument there, thus compromising your child's safely. (years ago the president of Chase Manhattan Bank in Manhattan's son was arrested for transporting heroin...his father knew our President, BUT NOTHING COULD BE DONE...he is still in prison in Turkey I believe) But, one should not pass judgment on the parents or for that matter law enforcement in Aruba...one must abide by their laws and as the old adage goes..."hindsight is 20/20"...

[texasbelle4732]

Aruba's Chief Prosecutor is talking with Greta and he just stated if there isn't really "heavy" evidence to try the case by December 31st the case will be dropped. Joran was held for 8 days in the Netherlands, and they've got 8 more days in Aruba then the judge can grant an additional 60 days detention. The Kalpoes have just started their first 8 day detention period.

[PrincessD]

Unfortunately, as the saying goes, "you can indicte a ham sandwich" in the U.S.; doesn't take much! Aruba....hmmmmmmmmm????? However, I still can't shake the theory, that PVDS aka Daddy is guilty of obstruction of justice....it's ok to slap me for saying this again, but as an officer of the court he should have been held to a higher standard and instilled that in his son....corruption, coverup, however you want to characterize it.....I strongly believe it impeded this case from day one. How could Natalee's family arrive on the island and obtain more info including who the main suspects were within less than 24 hrs. and this case could not be tried before the Aruban court, and the FOUR (I include Joran's daddy) be prosecuted and this case closed???? just my opinion....no shit! lol....

[texasbelle4732]

http://www.wjtv.com/gulfcoastwest/jtv/news.apx.-content-articles-JTV-2007-11-26-0017.html

Joran stays in jail for another 8 days.

[rwilymz]

"If one chooses to leave our country, one is then subjected to the laws of the country one visits; no argument there"

I call shenanigans. All you're doing is arguing.

Here you claim that well, it's a foreign country and they have their own laws to follow. But your litany of condemnable "evidence" is a recitation of how Dutch law should be acceding to US law on the matter involving a US citizen. ...or, more accurately, *your interpretation* of how US law would handle the matter.

You do that here:
"The Van der Sloots would not allow search of their property(and a search warrant was NEVER obtained; read that as connections with law enforcement)"

and here:
"as an officer of the court, PVDS, should suffer disbarrment (has he?) and be charged with obstructing justice"

"ask yourself this, If Natalee's family landed on the island within 24 hrs of her disappearance, obtained the names of the 3 suspects without help of the police in mere hours....do you really think that was a coincidence?"

Certainly.

Want to know why?

Because people asking "Have you seen this girl" among those with nothing to hide are not going to have too hard a time finding a trail.

Have you ever been to US tourist hotspots? Cancun? St Maarten? Cozumel? Nassau? any of them?

In most of those places the concept of "drinking age" is nominal at best -- where it's criminal at all. In some places [as the sayings go] "drinking age" is the date it becomes mandatory. ...while in the US, it's 21. The local cops in these places are essentially drunk-tank wardens.

American kids, "adult" enough in America to get their own passports and plane tickets but not adult enough to drink hop the first plane after graduation or spring/winter break, go to some sunny beach resort and drink until they puke up organs they never knew they had.

And the cops in these places pick them up off the street, hose them off, and return them to their hotels or cruise ships. In Cozumel -- before Wilma, at any rate -- there was a booming trade in rickshaw rides. They'd hang out in front of Señor Frogs and an hour before a ship was scheduled to leave the dock, the drivers would go wandering through the bar asking if anyone wanted a ride back to the pier and the gangway. They'd charge usury rates for it, too. Local cops and immigration, who don't allow anyone on the pier without a cruise ship pass or federales credentials allow the rickshaws on as long as the passenger passed out in the back has a cruise card and a passport.

Drunk American chicks are a dime a dozen in the Caribbean. If that. You can purchase a gross for a peso in Cancun on Easter break. And even in the era of the declining dollar, a peso is still worth -- roughly -- a fart in a gale.

A drunk American chick who's missing? *They're* a dime a dozen. Every cruise the wife and I go on has two or three people at every port who end up not catching the ship and they have to pay the cruise line usury rates to fly them to the next stop to catch it again. We overheard one "missing" passenger extolling the adventures of being passed-out drunk and [apparently] semi-naked all night on a north Coz beach before hitching back to town and rousting the Carnival rep.

Now, since this happens, literally **all the time** and almost never does anyone missing not eventually turn up having a massive hangover and smelling of rum or, in Aruba, curaçao perhaps, why should the local cops and other officials wish to bend over backwards for the pampered, lazy, selfish and demanding Americans who come barging into their country and demanding that the entire place be turned into some American colony or other? Particularly when they're spinning some fantastical tale of how their precious little princess who would never think of drinking her ass off at home [where it's, ahem, *illegal*] was cornered, raped and murdered by the son of a local judge.

Gosh. Whoda thunk. Americans acting like they rule the world, are the only ones who know anything, and blaming everyone else around them. Stop me if you've heard this story before...

And here's another factual tidbit that might make you wobble a little: all those resort ports and islands...? not only do they have booming business in rickshaws and one-way taxis and bottled water, but there's also a booming trade in nailing those drunk American chicks who materialize by the gross.

It's kind of a sport, actually. Unofficial, of course, and if the authorities "officially" knew they'd disapprove because it, frankly, does not provide good tourism PR, ... but still, if you're a local boy, reasonably good looking or otherwise swarthy, you get a job with the snorkelling outfits, parasailing, catamaranning, diving, or other such "excursion" outfits, or hang out at the local bars, and you pick on the American chicks who drink more than they are accustomed to drinking, and then you coax them out of their panties.

If they say no? who cares, there's another cruise ship full of future "yes" tomorrow, and another caravan of freshly graduated princesses coming straight from the airport. Not to mention, these places have their own laws which do not invest drunk chicks with as many rights and presumptions as American law does. When you're a drunk chick you are, indeed, in most of the world, asking for it. Even in most of this hemisphere.

You wanna know why it was so easy to find where she'd been that night? Now you know: It's a game to them.

You wanna know why the stories the boys told were inconsistent? You know that as well: It's bad for business to advertise the game.

You wanna know why the locals didn't fall [and largely still haven't fallen] all over themselves in deference to haughty Americans barging in and making imperious demands while blaming everyone in sight? You ought to know that, too: they not only have their own laws to follow, but they also have their pride.

Now while it is POSSIBLE that she was raped and murdered that night, and it's even possible that these three boys did it [separately or in concert], it is not likely -- even with their inconsistent stories. It is just as likely that she was picked up, drunk, off the beach and sold into white slavery -- which is another booming trade for what it's worth.

It is far more likely that she died of alcohol poisoning and was carted off to sea in a tide, drowned while passed out and carted off in the tide, or similar. And don't give me the tired old "but the tides don't work that way in Aruba" line. There are eddies, there are carnivorous fishes and reptiles, there are seaweeds and old forgotten fishing nets to get tangled in, and a thousand and four other impediments to the tides working the way they should in the lab.

As sad as it is, people sometimes end up missing, forever. And as uncomfortable as it might be for those invested in the CSI: Aruba mindset, not everything has a ready, or easy, explanation.

[PrincessD]

rwilymz....I agree to disagree with you on numerous points:

I call shenanigans. All you're doing is arguing.

Here you claim that well, it's a foreign country and they have their own laws to follow. But your litany of condemnable "evidence" is a recitation of how Dutch law should be acceding to US law on the matter involving a US citizen. ...or, more accurately, *your interpretation* of how US law would handle the matter.
***************************************************************************************************

U.S. law is subject to interpretation - FACT. Law is all about "arguing a case"...you know that! I respectfully beg to differ that "Dutch Law should be acceding to US Law".....visist any country and you are subject to THEIR LAWS....that is a FACT; did you see my post regarding the son of President of Chase Manhattan Bank???

Circumstancial evidence has incarcerated thousands in the US....am not presumtious enough to characterize the same in Aruba (it has been a long time since the beginning of the case, unfortunately I cannot recall alot of what I had learned about Aruban/Dutch law....there used to be a poster JR Dutch Attorney who provided info regarding their laws, but it got ugly, and I believe he was banned.....
**********************************************************************************************

Have you ever been to US tourist hotspots? Cancun? St Maarten? Cozumel? Nassau? any of them?
Yes, I have traveled extensively, and with my father being an attorney, he constantly reiterated that if something "bad" happens in another country....ONE IS SUBJECT TO THEIR LAWS...not arguing that point at all...don't understand what your point is regarding respecting laws of other countries? I have also been to Aruba a number of times....wonderful, innocent people in MY OPINION, and again, JMHO, they have suffered horribly due to the elite such as PVDS....just my opinion....and I respect yours along with the number of relevant points you have made....not arguing with you, just agreeing to disagree!

Although, I do not care for your characterization of "haughty Americans".....I have never chastised the Aruban people....not necessary, respect and like them very much; they are extremely kind (but disagree how you feel about Americans). Recently heard on MSNBC that the most liked travelers to foreign countries are the Japanese with Americans coming in second (friendly, respectful, good tipping was the criteria).

I do not condone teenagers taking a trip as this (i know, i know it is judgemental of me, but i feel the main concern of the parents should be the safety of their kids (apologies, judgmental again). Finally, why do you feel compelled to bash Americans? They barged onto the island? if it was my daughter, i would have made Natalee's family look like kitties! JMO....

[rwilymz]

"did you see my post regarding the son of President of Chase Manhattan Bank?"

Yes. And it contradicted your earlier statements. Frankly, I don't know which to believe, ... if any of it.

Do you actually know what you're talking about? or are you among the scads of "well-meaning" dilletantes who have picked up key words and phrases from various sources and are busy throwing them around as authoritative.

Sadly, there is a very juvenile thought process extant throughout this land: "Something bad happened to someone, so someone *else* must be responsible for it." This is the thought process that fuels our tort system [have your father give you a lesson on that ... unless he's a "personal injuries" guy, then discard everything he says]. Stupid little old ladies in Arizona can't be responsible for their own scaldings by doing something so utterly foolish as to defy polite description; let's blame McDonalds. And with blame goes legal culpability.

And if we can't prove it with physical evidence, then we're satisfied living in the land of circumstantia. Any number of thing *could* have happened to this girl, but only a very very few have a discreet and identifiable actor **causing** it [and which isn't the "victim" in question]; so let's start with that assumption.

Evidence? Not necessary. This line of thinking satisfies our inate need to *explain*. And god forbid that the explanation settles on a stupid girl doing stupid things causing her own troubles -- because that violates our naive innocence AND our national self-superiority.

"he constantly reiterated that if something "bad" happens in another country....ONE IS SUBJECT TO THEIR LAWS"

Your father is correct. You ought to have listened to him more often.

"not arguing that point at all"

You are flatly contradicting yourself, and either:
1] expecting me [and others] not to notice [which makes you dishonest or disingenuous], or
2] are not aware of your contradictions yourself [which makes you ignorant or otherwise a bad thinker].

In either event, I find your continued protestations to be tiresome and insulting.

IF you believe that "while in Aruba do as the Arubans" THEN you would not have said:

"The Van der Sloots would not allow search of their property(and a search warrant was NEVER obtained; read that as connections with law enforcement)"

or:
"as an officer of the court, PVDS, should suffer disbarrment (has he?) and be charged with obstructing justice"

You are, IN BOTH CASES, trying to superimpose *****US***** legal custom on top of Dutch law. Perhaps you could get your father to 'splain that to you, Lucy.

"I have also been to Aruba a number of times"

And did you pay attention while you were there?

"I do not care for your characterization of "haughty Americans"....."

Whether you care for it or not, it's fairly accurate. Americans are viewed, pretty much universally [where "universe" == "not the US"] as rude, imperious, demanding, selfish, fat, lazy and [particularly with respect to our ability to maintain "official" national dignity in the face of challenge, and by the challenger] *soft*.

Even in Canuckia, which is virtually "America Under Ice".

The fact that foreigners like [or likeD, under different exchange rates] us Americans to spend our money in their comparatively poorer nation has little bearing on it. They like us when we spend, spend, spend and do so quietly.

"I have never chastised the Aruban people"

It ain't their *people* involved, here. It's their guvmint. This is a no straw-man zone.

"why do you feel compelled to bash Americans?"

Because I know how we act. I've seen it. I've also scolded it. The common response is: "I paid for this; it ought to be my way..." This works in America [hell, I use it all the time], because it has come to be our culture; it is *not* "their" culture. We believe that by throwing our money around we obtain the authority to direct those who take it. ...we have purchased franchise rights.

We have not; we've simply thrown money around.

"They barged onto the island?"

Mommy and Daddy, yes. Haven't you been paying attention?

That's been the main point of popular contention, here. This is not the US government against the Aruban authorities; it's not US people against Aruban people. It's US *citizens* treating the Aruban athorities the same way they would treat the local police chief and prosecutor. We have the right to do that to our own; we do **not** have the right to do that elsewhere.

US *citizens* have gone to Aruba and started telling Aruban authorities how to conduct their business. Whether these people have passports and plane tickets, or whether they stormed the beach in a landing craft, telling others how to conduct their own legal affairs in their own sovereign territory is rude, and constitutes "barging".

You're doing it right now on the WORLD-WIDE web from the comfort of a [presumably] American office or coffee shoppe, and there are thousands if not tens- or hundreds-ditto just like you demanding that "justice" as you perceive it be meted out upon the three boys who last saw Darling Princess alive ... despite there being nothing which indicates which direction "justice" lies.

And, while they're at it, this "justice" needs to punish Papa Vander for doing for his son in his own country and under his own country's laws what Mommy and Daddy Holloway are doing for their daughter. But the difference is, Mom and [now] Dad are *not* in their own country but a foreign country, they are *not* using that nation's laws but attempting to shoehorn a foreign country's laws onto it, and they are center-stage in a wide morality play in which Americans are demanding that everyone else do things America's way, ... and if you stand in the way of that, you must be guilty of something as well.

"if it was my daughter, i would have made Natalee's family look like kitties"

No doubt. And that's the sense of entitlement that makes us all look like little crybabies as a nation.

[Hydrangea]

rwilymz

Why don't you move if you dislike the way Americans are? You come to this blog and rant and rave as to how despicable Americans are as humans, what exactly are you doing to change that which you are condemning????? You certainly are wasting a lot of precious time cutting, pasting and critiquing every post. I am sure there are many America bashing sites, why don't you go there!! What is your curiousity with the Natalee Holloway section of this blog? Do you think that you are offering a different perspective or are you just trying to be antagonistic?

Go right ahead a rip this post to shreds!!! Have at it!!! I for one don't care what your opinion is.

[rwilymz]

"Why don't you move if you dislike the way Americans are?"

I dislike the way EVERYone is, kiddo.

"You come to this blog and rant and rave as to how despicable Americans are as humans, what exactly are you doing to change that which you are condemning?"

Wah wah wah. Dry your tears, powderpuff. This is the first I've seen you.

Pretty much all people are despicable human beings; Americans are simply despicable in a fat, bloated, self-centered way.

If I scold enough people for being the self-centered boobs they are who demand that the rest of the world be extensions of us, then maybe a few of them will stop it.

"You certainly are wasting a lot of precious time cutting, pasting and critiquing every post."

Haven't taken on "every post"; and I don't consider it a waste of time. I get off on it, actually.

"I am sure there are many America bashing sites, why don't you go there!"

Dig it: I'm not bashing "America". I'm bashing AmericANS. You know, all the selfish, self-obsessed, whining crybabies who walk the streets demanding that everyone else do things their way, and who will sue them if they don't. "I can't stand that other folks are religious when I think freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion, and so I'm going to whine and pester and sue everyone until I get my way."

Those folks.

America allows it; I'm not criticizing America for allowing it. I'm criticizing those who abuse America's allowances with their false sense of entitlement.

Look, if you're going to criticize me at least do so accurately.

"What is your curiousity with the Natalee Holloway section of this blog?"

Same as my curiosity with anything else: either personal or professional.

I work in military stuff from a "theory" and analysis perspective, bordering on foreign policy; my grad school was sociology. Do your own math. Why would I be interested a sociological instantiation of foreign [ahem] affairs?

Conversely, I cannot stand politics -- mostly, I figure, because I ultimately work for them and cannot for the life of me tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican from the way they conduct their business once in office. You'll probably find me scarce on those articles dealing with the triviality of the candidates for what they have to say about anything. It's largely fart gas.

"Do you think that you are offering a different perspective or are you just trying to be antagonistic?"

I'm busy being **correct**, if that's what you're trying to ascertain. There's no evidence of what most Americans popularly believe happened.

None.

Zippo.

Bupkus.

It is a faulty analysis of what is **KNOWN** to conclude "murder". Yet that's what so many people wish to do. And because the "victim" involved, and her poor beleaguered parents, are sympathetic creatures -- with or without the Pretty White Girl Syndrome -- it is natural to leap to irrational and unsupported conclusions based on emotional impulse rather than reality.

Sorry.

That's not "my opinion". That is fact.

That's not merely "another perspective"; it is still fact.

People leap to irrational conclusions all the time without having any evidence to support them. There is no evidence to support "murder" any more than there is to support white slaving. ...or alien abduction for that matter.

And what you view as "antagonistic" is simply a rational person reminding you what your emotional impulses have been ignoring. To keep up the charade, you are willing to trivialize fact that stands in the way of your preferred conclusion, and downgrade it to "perspective" or to "opinion".

That does not happen around me; ask others.

I've thrown you simpletons the only bone you deserve at this point: it is POSSIBLE that she was murdered. But there are so-o-o-o-o many more things that could have happened to her that are far more likely.

You aren't going to get more from me than that.

[captain catnip]

Holloway said he would alert police on the Dutch Caribbean island if anything is found.
.......................................................................

before or after he alerts fox news?

[Princess D]

rwilymz....I see I have a new friend! You have every right to disagree with me, call me stupid (you are obviously very intelligent, regardless of the fact I don't agree with what you have to say or how you say it...your perogative (although, angry personal attacks do compromise your credibility...and you have made some very salient, interesting points...you would be more credible if you would lose the anger...JMO)

In either event, I find your continued protestations to be tiresome and insulting.
** and although I disagree with you, I will defend your right to state what you believe (you think I'm stupid...fine)**

You are, IN BOTH CASES, trying to superimpose *****US***** legal custom on top of Dutch law. Perhaps you could get your father to 'splain that to you, Lucy.
** if I misrepresented that issue, let me clarify...absolutely not; One must abide by the law of the country you are visiting...if I contradicted that I don't know how to make it more clear...again stupid in your opinion....fine, again**

And, while they're at it, this "justice" needs to punish Papa Vander for doing for his son in his own country and under his own country's laws what Mommy and Daddy Holloway are doing for their daughter. But the difference is, Mom and [now] Dad are *not* in their own country but a foreign country, they are *not* using that nation's laws but attempting to shoehorn a foreign country's laws onto it, and they are center-stage in a wide morality play in which Americans are demanding that everyone else do things America's way, ... and if you stand in the way of that, you must be guilty of something as well.
**Aruban/Dutch Law must be respected; it is merely my opinion that clearly there was no cooperation by PVDS...an officer of the court....as such, insist on the truth, follow the LAWS OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY, and not obstruct justice; again, just my opinion and yet again, stupid according to you that I believe the 3/4 suspects had something to do with Natalee's disappearance. Yes, other things could have occured, no other evidence beyond that which leads to the suspects. At least enough evidence to lead to the boys being initially incarcerated. Right? UNDER ARUBAN LAW, BY ARUBAN JUDGES! do you dispute that????

"if it was my daughter, i would have made Natalee's family look like kitties"

No doubt. And that's the sense of entitlement that makes us all look like little crybabies as a nation.
**I was speaking from an emotional standpoint as a parent....emotion, you got me on that one, but not necessary to degregade all Americans as crybabies, or from a crybaby nation (remember the credibility issue...you are too intelligent, I say it again, to stoop to this level).

One final question, above you say "makes us all look like little crybabies", implication being you are American???? Nahhhhhhhhhh.....ya gotta be French (who BTW were voted the worst travelers in the report I mentioned in another post... rude, cheap,bad tippers....HAHAHAHHAHAHA!

JUST ANOTHER SIMPLETON ACCORDING TO YOU! PrincessD....BE NICE GENIUS, IT IS MORE CREDIBLE, and I find it sad that "I dislike the way EVERYone is, kiddo."....that is your quote, simply say you are a misanthrope, and although that is a shame, we all can't have happy lives, I hope you find some happiness....in the meantime, obviously you enjoy criticizing and smacking people down...knock yourself out and enjoy!

Posted by: rwilymz | Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 01:14 PM

[Princess D]

Pretty much all people are despicable human beings; Americans are simply despicable in a fat, bloated, self-centered way.

If I scold enough people for being the self-centered boobs they are who demand that the rest of the world be extensions of us, then maybe a few of them will stop it.

Posted by: rwilymz | Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 02:41 PM

Not only are you a freaking genius, we can assume you are philanthropic (not self centered), and thin (fat people are despicable? tsk..tsk...tsk)...you are just adorable, not arrogant in any way whatsoever, superior, WOW!!!!!!! what are you doing this Saturday you sweet man you??? OMG....you are a man aren't you....HAHAHA!

[texasbelle4732]

Folks, bottom line...the girl was evidently murdered. The perps need to be punished and if there was/is collusion on the part of government officials, they should be punished as well. It doesn't matter if "drunk American chicks" are a dime a dozen, no one in any country should be able to get away with druging, raping or certainly murdering people just because they want to "get their rocks off" and Daddy's got enough money and pull to protect them. Unfortunately, the Dutch are infamous for that mentality when it comes to their treatment of any non-Dutch society, i.e. Indonesia, South Africa, etc.

[Hydrangea]

rwilymz

WOW, I actually feel bad for you, American, French, Martian whatever you are.

BTW, I was here 2 years ago when Natalee first disappeared. I came back as Dan usually had more news regarding Aruba and the case before the MSM did. You have probably not seen me as I don't post on the political sections of the blog although I do enjoy reading many of Dan's entries.

Peace,
Powderpuff

[PrincessD]

where is everyone???????????? :(

[Murph]

I am tired of this talk of "RICH,BlONDE" is why this case is still going forward and if she had been of another color maybe not. I myself flew in from the Cayman Islands to look for "Natalee" because I am from her home town. Friends,family and strangers like myself showed up to search and would not go away. The Holiday Inn in Aruba was full of Alabama people there to help. I have never seen such a response to a foreign country by friends and family in my life and everyone paid there on way and not by Beth or Dave who are just hard working Americans. If you count friends and family as wealth maybe they are Rich!

[Murph]

Yoda,I was part of the search team and also believe Natalee is in the ocean because not many stones were left unturned.You need to speak of what you know!

[Ugly American]

rwilymz! Wake the "F" up! and apologize(seriously doubt you are capable or have any inclination to do so, afterall you are always right!) to all these good people. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but didn't have the guts to return. Then again you are superior to all here, why would you waste your time? Stupid PD gave you too much attention (she is stupid, I know you agree with that). Everyone else was smart enough to ignore your ranting. Although I resent your characterizations of Americans and incorrect evaluation of their behavior, you inadvertantly made them superior to your mean spirited, argumentative personality. Go away now, you are not appreciated here. OR act like a human being and discuss issues in lieu of personally attacking we *Ugly Americans*.

[Princess D]

I knew this would happen again.....goodbye all (ohhhh poor me....) I will be lurking periodically, but I brought posters like rwilymz and Ugly American and y'all don't need/nor deserve that because of me. It was so good seeing you all....I will be lurking periodically....but once again, have been run off. Not fun, although I attempted to lighten things up with that poster....stay well all and I wish you Happy Holidays! Funny, I think I know who that sweet man is (again I think it is a man? HA) Take care! It was great for a few days!

[rwilymz]

"although, angry personal attacks do compromise your credibility"

They would if there had been any.

Look, folks, if you don't want me calling you ignorant or disingenuous, then don't be ignorant or disingenuous. While *impolite*, they are accurate terms to describe a certain specific means of making arguments ... and you folks are displaying them.

"you would be more credible if you would lose the anger"

Explain to me this "anger" you seem to see. As with the other self-righteous vigilante who chimed in against *me* rather than my statements, [check that out for "angry, personal attacks", kiddies], just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean that it's "antagonistic".

Just because I "***" around certain terms doesn't imply anger. It only means that I'm unable to italicize or underscore. You infer anger? that's your own doing. This is, *again*, a no straw-man zone. You do not have the luxury of saddling me with your academic shortcomings.

Now, if you're done shooting the messenger, let's get on to the subject at hand.

"you think I'm stupid...fine"

You aren't done pouting, I see. Your arguments are certainly stupid. They are also superficial, vindictive, irrational and vacuous. All terms which, again, are impolite means of describing actual sentiments you admittedly hold. If you don't wish me to use those terms to describe you, then don't hold the views which make those terms appropriate, or state your arguments in such ways as to make those terms accurate.

You are reacting out of pure, grade-A emotion, ... and admittedly so. Frankly, that much was obvious. I deal with this type of simplistic, knee-jerk person all the time in other areas.

"if I misrepresented that issue, let me clarify...absolutely not; One must abide by the law of the country you are visiting"

It goes beyond "abiding by their law when you visit"; it also includes allowing *their* laws to be used to direct all aspects of events which occur within *their* sovereign territory.

And *this* is what you are not -- according to other statements you've made -- willing to allow.

You want to impose ***US*** legal custom regarding search warrants onto Aruba -- which has their own rules regarding ditto, **and they used those laws**. You are complaining about Aruba using its own laws. And then dishonestly saying you aren't.

You want to impose ***US*** statutory restraints on judicial authority unto Aruban judicial authorities, when the Arubans have their own rules to abide by -- and were doing so. You are complaining about Aruba using its own laws. And then dishonestly saying you aren't.

In short, you are a hypocrite. ...which is, **yet again**, simply an impolite term to describe reality here. You don't want me to call you a hypocrite, then drop the self-righteous, pretentious demand for punishing Pater Vander and the conspiracy theories over search warrants. They were following their own rules, and you are not respecting that.

"it is merely my opinion that clearly there was no cooperation by PVDS...an officer of the court....as such, insist on the truth, follow the LAWS OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY, and not obstruct justice"

He wasn't.

Dutch law is not based on English Common Law, like US law is. ...have daddy explain this to you... Dutch law is based on Napoleonic Code -- imposed upon several countries during Napoleon's conquests of much of Europe. Judicial authority is muchMuchMUCH different under napoleonic custom than it is here.

"yet again, stupid according to you that I believe the 3/4 suspects had something to do with Natalee's disappearance."

It is stupid, vindictive and self-righteous in that there is NO EVIDENCE that the three stupid boys had any more to do with the stupid girl apart from drinking with her and [putatively] attempting to ... um ... "lock and load" her.

Do you know what it's called to leap to convenient and emotionally satisfying conclusions based on NO EVIDENCE?

If so, then why are you protesting so strenuously when I call those who do it *what they are* when they do it?

You are leaping to convenient and emotionally satisfying conclusions based on NO EVIDENCE. It doesn't get simpler than that.

"Yes, other things could have occured, no other evidence beyond that which leads to the suspects."

But what does it lead to the "suspects" DOING?

Ans: not murder.

Here's what it leads to and ALL that it leads to:
It leads to the "suspects" drinking with her.
It [putatively] leads to them trying to nail her.

Now, while it's rude, callous and fairly neanderthalish to an American sensibility to get a tourist chick drunk so you can take advantage of her, that is not the same as murder.

To conclude "murder" from drinking and screwing is a huge leap of logic. Which is -- as you like to remind yourself -- stupid.

There would be **no point** to murder. If she cried "rape" ... so what? she was drunk, fergodsake; three against one, they only need to say she said "yes" -- *if* charges could have been filed in the first place. Even **that** is disputable.

By far, the most likely explanation of what is **known** is that the stupid girl drowned and was washed out to sea. To drift away, or to get tangled in some shoreline detritus that collects along shorelines the world over. If that more likely scenario had happened, she would still have been drinking with the three stupid boys, she would still have been their target for [as one of you so charmingly described] "getting their rocks off" into, and she still would have been left on the beach or at her hotel or wherever it was. The **known** **evidence** points to NOTHING. IN. PARTICULAR.

"At least enough evidence to lead to the boys being initially incarcerated. Right?"

Wrong.

There was no evidence. There was suspicion, because they were the last people who were known to be with her. This is ARUBAN LAW, not US law. Again, you are not understanding the differences, and you are attempting to superimpose US legal custom onto their sovereign laws. They can hold "suspects" for umpteen days without charge; we cannot. While in custody, they are called "suspects" even if they are -- in US terminology -- "material witnesses".

The problems come in when ignoramuses see the term "suspect" and equivocate a US legal meaning onto a Dutch law usage. You are an ignoramus here -- which is **yet again** an impolite manner of accurately describing reality.

"but not necessary to degregade all Americans as crybabies, or from a crybaby nation"

Sorry, but the world is chock full of stereotypes; it ain't simply us Americans which do it. We are viewed by the rest of the world as a unitary bloc of people, having a unitary personality. And among the traits of that unitary personality is arrogance and immaturity -- i.e., "crybaby".

Stop shooting the messenger.

"you are too intelligent, I say it again, to stoop to this level"

I find it uproarious that you are accusing me of "angry personal attacks" when I'm simply being accurate and honest and CORRECT in the face of a convenient and popular fantasy, and it is *my* credibility which is an issue, not to mention what I "stoop" to. I'm "stooping" to accuracy, toots. If you don't like it, that's your problem. You don't have the luxury of making your problems mine.

"simply say you are a misanthrope, and although that is a shame, we all can't have happy lives"

My, aren't you presumptuous! I have an exceedingly happy life, thankyouverymuch.

And you know what? I also -- on a great many topics -- leap to convenient and comfortable conclusions based on NO EVIDENCE myself. But I have the honesty to know when I'm doing it. And I also have the respect for others I deal with that when I discuss those convenient and comfortable conclusions I do not represent them as anything other than baseless.

I specifically do not rationalize.

You are rationalizing. I'm sorry. But you're making us all look like vengeful fools willing to string up three stupid boys for, at this point, being three stupid boys.

"Not only are you a freaking genius"

Want my Mensa membership #?

"we can assume you are philanthropic (not self centered)"

In several ways, yes. In others, notsomuch. Just like everyone. But I'm glad you aren't making "angry personal attacks". Shooting messengers, while satisfying, doesn't -- as they say -- feed the bulldog. There's still no evidence of murder, and you're still claiming a murder was committed.

"and thin"

Actually, yes. I've been turned down for group life insurance because for most of my life I've been clinically "underweight" for my height. Hereitary. Both my sons are the same way. My daughters take after their mother. "Average". One slightly moreso.

"fat people are despicable? tsk..tsk...tsk"

Cool! Outright a-contextual prevarication! Neato.

"you are just adorable, not arrogant in any way whatsoever"

I'm quite adorable -- in a thin, sesquipedalian, alopecian sorta way. But I'm kinda arrogant. Surely you didn't miss that!! I'm almost as arrogant as you are, what with your rush to judgments and superimposition of US legal customs onto other sovereign countries, your pot-kettling against me and my "angry personal attacks"...

So earlier, when you said you had a new friend ... you and I *are* quite alike in personality, in several ways. I, though, am able to set aside a personal, emotional interest in the events in question, and see the issue objectively.

You, admittedly, cannot and resent it when I remind you of that. That is the bulk of the issue between you and I.

"Folks, bottom line...the girl was evidently murdered."

The word "evidently" implies evidence. Regale us with this evidence pointing at murder.

"no one in any country should be able to get away with druging, raping or certainly murdering people"

Drugging? She was drinking -- of her own free will.
Raping? "Rape" requires certain conditions to occur -- and in many parts of the world, being drunk is a huge disqualification.
"Certainly" murdering? Back we go to this sparkling new "evidence". Spill it. Got a body yet? with a bullet hole in it? or a "JVdS" monogrammed belt wound tightly around its neck?

Or are you making it all up?

"Unfortunately, the Dutch are infamous for that mentality"

Every nation at almost every point of its history is just as "infamous" for the exact same thing. The Dutch aren't the bad guys here.

"WOW, I actually feel bad for you"

I feel worse for you. Being honest in the face of those who wish, instead, for comfort is a hard thing to do. As a result, I'm often called "rude" and "impolite" and "tactless" and a whole bevy of other things. ...not the least of which is being repeatedly accused of making "angry personal attacks" simply by opening my mouth [or typing a comment] and saying those honest, accurate things.

But you ... and the other vigilantes ... so convinced that your castle-in-the-air is real that you're willing to go to any academically dishonest length to maintain the façade.

"rwilymz! Wake the "F" up! and apologize"

Okay. Fair enough.

I'm sorry you're an ugly American. I'm sorry that me being right is such a threat to you.

There. Two for the price of one. Feel better?

"Yes, you are entitled to your opinion"

I've given veryveryvery few opinions.

"Then again you are superior to all here"

If, by "superior" you really mean "able to be objective", then, yes. I am.

"Everyone else was smart enough to ignore your ranting"

"Ranting". See? This is what being honest and accurate gets me. It's now a "rant".

Sorry [hey! a third apology!], but I'm right and you're unable to deal with it.

What am I right about?

For the record, I have not said what happened, for I do not know. Nor do you know. All I have said is that because you do not know, AND because there is no evidence that points to what you repeatedly assert is "certainly murder", that you are being [as one continually claims] "stupid", irrational, conclusion-leaping, self-righteous and vindictive.

"I resent your characterizations of Americans and incorrect evaluation of their behavior"

Incorrect? You are incorrect.

"you inadvertantly made them superior to your mean spirited, argumentative personality"

Nothing I have said or done has been "mean spirited".

However, this is:
"Go away now, you are not appreciated here"

"OR act like a human being and discuss issues in lieu of personally attacking we *Ugly Americans*."

I have been.

I'll make you the same challenge: if you don't want me citing "these good people" for being self-righteous, vindictive, irrational conclusion-leapers, then provide the evidence which points EXCLUSIVELY to murder.

Failing that, cease calling people, against whom NO EVIDENCE OF MURDER exists, murderers.

Okay? Fair enough?

And, as an added side-bar discussion, please explain to me why "good people" are entitled to issue slanderous statements such as "they murdered her" when there is bupkus evidence to support it.

That oughta be a lively debate.

[Princess D]

You won rwilymz....I am gone....just too stupid to contribute and engage in intelligent, constructive discussion...as I said, I knew it would happen! Happy? you could care less, but I am glad you are a happy person and not angry at all....byeeeeeeeeeee!

[rwilymz]

"You won rwilymz"

I tend to.

"I am gone"

You need to climb down off your cross first. You're trying to be a martyr, sticking up for a poor "victim" who, for all anyone knows, did herself in, even if unintentionally.

In your zeal to stick up for this [probably] self-inflicted "victim", you are willing to throw three -- or is it four? -- other people into the pit for having the misfortune of having been in this [probably] non-victim "victim's" presence last ... or for being related to one of them.

I'd ask how you can sleep at night, but I'm already aware of the answer: you rationalize.

Just like those who rationalize why it's acceptable for jihadists to blow up Americans or other westerners for being better at commerce than they are; for environmental policy to be made mandatory "just in case" the science catches up and proves to be correct when their hundred-year-prediction timeline finally plays itself out ... and all the other sloppy, sloppy, SLOPPY thinkers out there.

Their own biases and prejudices are fine, because they know that they have only the *best of intentions* while issuing and using them. So what if you have to sacrifice three boys? There's a **possibility** that someone was murdered, and it's better to punish folks pre-emptively than risk someone getting away with murder.

Repeat this enough times, and pretty soon you believe it: "the reason there's no evidence is because Judge Daddy Vander Sloot hid it..."

"Happy?"

With what? You leaving, chin all a-quiver? Could not care less if I tried.

You ceasing, at least temporarilly, the vigilantism? Ecstatic.

"I am glad you are a happy person and not angry at all"

Well, here's something for you to take heart in: I hate, loathe and despise institutional gift-giving, and I was reminded that this weekend I get to help my wife wrap xmas gifts.

I am now in a bad mood.

So ... are **you** happy now?

[Hydrangea]

Lurking...yes good idea, PD. At least until there is some news regarding the case. I for one don't appreciate the assumptions that have been made about the majority of posters here. I think most here are just hoping for some answers. Most realize that the Dutch judicial system is way different than our own, however bottom line is actions speak louder than words and appearence DOES count for something!!! If J2K hadn't changed their story so many times or made statements and then retracted them, perhaps some of us "Americans" would not have jumped to conclusions, be that accurate or not!
Some of us have better things to do!!! See ya!

[Princess D]

No I am not happy you are in a bad mood, although I wish I was more like you and could care less my dear rwilymz....you say you do not engage in personal attacks...calling someone a "simpleton" as one example is personal; I am not a martyr, as you have determined...it is not fair to other posters here that someone as yourself is on the attack, I am merely leaving, because I know why this is happening and 99.9% sure who you are and who your "friends" are. I have too much respect and like most here very much to expose them to this....that is not being a martyr, that is good manners and respect for those one cares about. Enough. Happy Holidays to all!

[Princess D]

Thank you Hydrangea for the advice; I sincerely wish you Happy Holidays, and am glad you are important and have better things to do! To quote you....See ya! (Doubt it....regards to your "friends").....

[Hydrangea]

Princess D...

Sorry if I was confusing. My last post was directed at rwilymz not you (other than the idea of lurking)!!!

I just think he is an antagonistic person and I don't wish to converse with him anymore!!! He just cuts, pastes and critiques. Granted, there has not been any news to speak of regarding the case as I'm sure Dan would be on top of it. I think the saying used to be "he's wasting Dan's bandwidth". Not that I even understand what that means LOL! I remember the likes of Ruby and others that Dan would have to ban, hopefully it won't get that bad.

I'll stop back occasionally and post a "hi" to see if anyone is here!!

Hope you have a great Holiday too!!

[rwilymz]

"I for one don't appreciate the assumptions that have been made about the majority of posters here."

What assumptions might those be?

You are rushing to judgments, since you've all pronounced three boys guilty of murder when it's problematic that you could demonstrate murder in the first place, let alone anyone who is guilty of it.

Since you have as much as declared that you don't need evidence in order to do this, that makes you vindictive vigilantes [I like alliteration]; since you seem to have decided this all based upon your admitted emotional bias towards one party and away from another, that further makes you irrational; and since you seem to know more among yourselves than those who are authorized to investigate, it makes you self-righteous.

These aren't much in the way of **assumptions**; these are pretty much all straight-from-the-dictionary definitions.

"bottom line is actions speak louder than words and appearence DOES count for something!"

Nice bumper sticker, but unless you ground it upon something relevant, it's pretty much meaningless.

"If J2K hadn't changed their story so many times or made statements and then retracted them"

My advice to you and yours is to let the cops do the investigation. This type of hamfisted "common sense" reaction gets more in the way than anything else. This ain't CSI: Aruba. You aren't the "good cop" to my "bad cop".

If "princess D's" father is a criminal lawyer or prosecutor [as opposed to a personal injuries loyyer, or probate guy] then he can explain this Criminology 101 lesson to D, who can explain it to you -- or you can simply take my word for it and do your own research to verify.

Innocent parties named "suspects" [or, in modern parlance, "persons of interest"] and rounded up by cops and interrogated often have a hard time keeping their stories straight.

Why? Because they are suddenly thrown into an emotionally traumatic situation with no time to mentally prepare for it.

Guilty persons, on the other hand, are often those who are the calmest, most lucid, most consistent story-tellers. They can say where they were the whole time [even if it's a lie], and have names of people who can verify it, sticking to the same details over and over and over again. Why? Because they have *had* time to mentally prepare for it; they've either taken the time to *make* a story and internalized it, or they paid attention while the crime was going on so that they would be able to call on those details later.

Guilty people have been known to nap in the interrogation room while waiting for the cops to show up. Innocent people fret and pace and talk to themselves and drink up all the water and have to pee...

Having inconsistent stories -- either between the three of them, or internally inconsistent -- IN AND OF ITSELF means nothing. In fact, that, in the absence of physical evidence, is on the contrary frequently an indicator of innocence.

Inconsistent testimony *with* physical evidence pointing to their involvement in murder, however slight on the other hand, means something else entirely.

Got physical evidence? If so, you're the only one. And I've asked you before.

*With* physical evidence, the inconsistent stories become a matter of having unpracticed criminals -- which would, under US legal terms [since you folks love it so much that you believe the rest of the world should abide by it], tend to render "murder" to be more along the lines of "involuntary manslaughter".

But alas, there's no physical evidence.

"I just think he is an antagonistic person and I don't wish to converse with him anymore"

Was your nose stuck up in the air as you typed that? "Tell 'X' I'm not talking to him." "Yeah? well tell 'Y' that if she's not talking to me, then I'm not talking to her either!!!"

Jesus, don't you have anything better to do in your "better things to do" than repeat tired old sitcom plots that weren't funny or clever in the first place?

You consider me "antagonistic" because I'm right and you know it. You have leapt to conclusions that are not supported by the known facts, the facts that *would* support your conclusion do not exist, and I'm simply reminding you of it.

Period.

That is my "antagonism".

Grow up.

[HYdrangea]

You have leapt to conclusions..

Where have I lept to conclusions?

[rwilymz]

"Where have I lept to conclusions?"

Here:
"Let's hope that they actually have something on the boys that sticks."

Here:
"To those that think that the 3 should be left alone...listen and tell me they aren't guilty of taking part in Natalee's disappearance."

Here:
"Papa Sloot, is at the very least guilty of being non-cooperative and coaching J2K."

Here:
"The constant changing of their stories is indicitve of their involvement."

I'm leaving out the irrelevant personal jabs at me.

[Hydrangea]

"You are rushing to judgments, since you've all pronounced three boys guilty of murder when it's problematic that you could demonstrate murder in the first place, let alone anyone who is guilty of it."

None of my above statements draw a conclusion that they committed a murder...

[Sunny]

Wow! It has been a couple years and nothing has changed here. Same old bickering.

Hopefully, this time the ALE will find out what really happened and who is responsible.

Happy Holidays, everyone.

[windy city]

"But alas, there's no physical evidence."

Again rw, how do you know this? You state it as fact. Mos hasn't said one way or the other what he has or doesn't have. The defense hasn't a clue what he has either.

Maybe you should leave the speculating up to us commoners and you stick to being a pompous asswipe. It is indeed something you are very good at.

[suzyqueue]

No I am not happy you are in a bad mood, although I wish I was more like you and could care less my dear rwilymz....you say you do not engage in personal attacks...calling someone a "simpleton" as one example is personal; I am not a martyr, as you have determined...it is not fair to other posters here that someone as yourself is on the attack, I am merely leaving, because I know why this is happening and ######99.9% sure who you are and who your "friends" are.###### NONSENSE!!!! I have too much respect and like most here very much to expose them to this....that is not being a martyr, that is good manners and respect for those one cares about. Enough. Happy Holidays to all!

Posted by: Princess D | Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM

PD - may I remind you where you are? You have said you've posted here a fair amount; you should know that the FP of RWV always attracts some interesting posters. This is no exception. You apparently think you know who this person is - I admit that I thought it was Althor - but it is neither (unless you know the person at the end of the link.) If you had clicked on "rwilymz's" name, you would have been taken to his blog - http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/ - I would suggest you take a look; this has NOTHING to do with you. NOTHING!!

Lots of "oldies" have turned up; it's up to you to stop taking things personally - as well as up to you whether you stay or leave. First rule of the 'net and blogs/message boards: it ain't about you unless you allow it to be. You either need a thick skin; a hard ass; or the ability to simply let stuff go - the latter being the easiest and best solution in my opinion.

rwilymz admits to being a skinny, bald(ing,) conceited blabbermouth here - and on his blog he goes further into his description of who he is. Stubborn comes to mind; crabby is definitely there. And you fell for it; the straw man argument point was right on. Now, WTH he's doing on the NH post rather than the one dealing with Americans and their behavior, who knows? Not me. #:>

As I said, it's up to you whether you stay or or leave. One suggestion - anyone with "princess" in her name is setting herself up as a target - regardless of how valid your arguments might be. May I suggest "Doris?" Buck up and be happy. Happy Holidays - you're at RWV!! #:>

[cindi]

heh

[openthread]

Cindi...as in PA???

[openthread]

Hey Q! I see that a few of the old folks are back. I also see that someone thinks that I have been posting here, in fact I haven't. So if you're lurking, it wasn't me!

[suzyqueue]

Hey Q! I see that a few of the old folks are back. I also see that someone thinks that I have been posting here, in fact I haven't. So if you're lurking, it wasn't me!

Posted by: openthread | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Hey "OT"!! I'm not lurking and it was me either!! How's life? BTW - who else but "as in PA"? You should check out the NH thread - it's like old home week!! Jo's getting something special in January!! Who-ha!!

[suzyqueue]

(sheet - wish I could edit)

Hey "OT"!! I'm not lurking and it was NOT me either!!
Posted by: suzyqueue | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:23 AM

[helmut]

ye kfc eatin sand niglets and patna back in town

[rwilymz]

"None of my above statements draw a conclusion that they committed a murder..."

Seriously? You're going to hang your hat on that?

One of my favorite authors is Ambrose Bierce ["Devil's Dictionary"] I'm typing this from memory:

Technicality, n., In England a man name Home was arrested on charges of slander in having accused a neighbor of murder. His exact words were, "Sir Thomas Holt hath taken a cleaver and stricken his cook on the head such that one side of the head fell upon one shoulder and the other side of the head fell upon the other shoulder." He was acquited of the charges, the learned judge holding that the words did not affirm murder, that being merely an inference.

You, toots, are in denial.

"Again rw, how do you know this? You state it as fact."

Are you completely oblivious to the rules of rhetoric? They are also, not coincidentally, the foundation for the rules of western legal jurisprudence. If you make a positive assertion, you have the burden of proof.

I have made no positive assertions here; I have merely been saying that you folks, in **your** positive assertions, have failed to provide what is required of you before drawing the conclusions that you've all drawn.

In the absence of YOU providing the physical evidence that leads inexoribly to a missing girl having been murdered, you cannot properly [either intellectually or legally] conclude she *was* murdered. In the absence of evidence, you must therefore presume there is none. This is the intellectual logical/rhetorical reality, and it is the western legal presumption. On that legal point, napoleonic and British common law systems are in agreement.

"rwilymz admits to being a skinny, bald(ing,) conceited blabbermouth here - and on his blog he goes further into his description of who he is."

Somebody knows how to use a dictionary. Kudo to you. You'd get the pluralized kudoS, but this type of research is trivial.

"Stubborn comes to mind; crabby is definitely there."

My wife keeps calling me "House". But the joke's on her: I don't have a cane. [I prefer to consider myself Doctor Cox].

As far as "stubborn" goes, I'm not about to concede reality to a popular fantasy no matter how many times you wish to hold an election to declare 2+2=5. Not gonna happen.

"And you fell for it..."

Actually, there's nothing to "fall" for. I'm an analyst by profession, data analyst, specifically. Been doing it for over 25 years. The practice is the same irrespective of the subject matter. I'll have to say, though, that not many people have the capacity to be "analysts" in any real sense, since you mustMustMUST be able to divorce your emotional desires from the subject matter.

Facts belong on one pile, opinions belong nowhere. The second you start having opinions, you start injecting desire, and your analysis becomes flawed. By definition. You *may* still get the right answer, but for the same reasons your algebra teacher requires you to "show your work", you must have the right analytic basis to be able to get the right answer again and again and again. Opinioneering is not allowed.

I do not know, nor do I care, what happened to this stupid girl. Apparently all y'all do. Therefore, I'm the only one among us capable of giving any sort of honest analysis of what is **known**. Sorry. The **facts** as they are known point to nothing in particular.

COULD she have been murdered? Sure, she COULD have. WAS she? I don't know; neither do you. And all of the gyrations you go through to explain why she *was* is called, in logical/rhetorical circles, *rationalization*. It is sloppy thinking.

You are playing CSI: Aruba. Not your job.

Murder is, actually, among the *least* likely of the possibilities.

But since you insist on playing Junior Detective about this, then apply some of a detective's thinking for once. Define MOM.
Means: unknown -- no body.
Opportunity: this there was, yes. They were with her that night.
Motive: none. They had no reason to kill her.

Again, they were trying to boink her. A foreign drunk chick on her last night on the island. Almost nowhere north of the Rio Grande does being drunk NOT affect the application of rape law. She's drunk, she asked for it. That's what it amounts to; sorry for the reminder if any of you are latent feminists. Kill her to protect themselves from rape charges? Unlikely in the extreme. Daddy judge, to boot? C'mon, folks, **think**.

Why would they have killed her? what would be the motive?

You lay claim to being thoughtul, intelligent, rational people with valid arguments, let's see some. Even one valid argument would be helpful here.

On top of which, basic criminology will tell you that inconsistent stories is the hallmark of either:
1] innocent people suddenly considered criminal suspects, or
2] inexperienced criminals who haven't had time to get their story straight.

Let's assume they're actual criminals, just for the sake of argument. Basic criminology *also* tells you that inexperienced criminals will also sell each other out at the drop of a hat, if not sooner. Has that happened? It's been two years and nuthin.

NOTHING points at murder.

You aren't looking for the *right* answer, you're looking for *your* answer, the one you *prefer* to have.

Case in point:
"Let's hope that they actually have something on the boys that sticks."

You are poisoning your view of the case. All while pretending to be these ultra-sympathetic and concerned people just wanting "justice". Well, sorry, guys, but "justice" sometimes doesn't go in the direction you think it does.

If I were to guess, if I were to apply the limited psych I picked up [sociology is related to psych], I would have to say that you have a typical modern-American belief that bad things simply do not happen to good people because good people get phenomenally stupid from time to time; that bad things happen to these good people **only** because bad people cause bad things to happen.

That is naive, unrealistic, grossly ignorant and, when you start imposing that belief on others in self-righteous ways [as you have been], you come across as veryveryvery arrogant.

...which makes the irony of you calling **me** arrogant extremely delish.

The people to whom you wish something to "stick" are not, at this point, "bad people" despite your attempts to paint them as such; they are *stupid* people [as is/was the "victim", for what it's worth], they are selfish people, and they are now very very self-interested in their own necks. That's about it.

[Hydrangea]

Seriously? You're going to hang your hat on that?

~~~~

Yes

~~~~~~~~~

That is naive, unrealistic, grossly ignorant and, when you start imposing that belief on others in self-righteous ways [as you have been], you come across as veryveryvery arrogant.

...which makes the irony of you calling **me** arrogant extremely delish.

The people to whom you wish something to "stick" are not, at this point, "bad people" despite your attempts to paint them as such; they are *stupid* people [as is/was the "victim", for what it's worth], they are selfish people, and they are now very very self-interested in their own necks. That's about it.
~~~~

I have called you arrogant however you are combining posts from two different folks here. Perhaps you should respond more carefully. YOU like to throw around the word "you" and lump all of us together...and then claim to know what we all feel and have said...

Now you can respond to this but do not anticipate any additional responses from me...yup I mean it this time. Two words for you VITRIOLIC DIATRIBE...HAVE AT IT!!

[suzyqueue]

"rwilymz admits to being a skinny, bald(ing,) conceited blabbermouth here - and on his blog he goes further into his description of who he is."

Somebody knows how to use a dictionary. Kudo to you. You'd get the pluralized kudoS, but this type of research is trivial.

Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I forgot one while I was busily searching through the dictionary - http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=flame%20bait #:>

[rwilymz]

"I have called you arrogant however you are combining posts from two different folks here"

Two different folks with essentially the same argument. And as this is *not* a doctoral thesis, spending any significant amount of time making the discernment is -- as you [specifically YOU, toots] were worried about me doing -- a waste of my time.

"Perhaps you should respond more carefully."

Tell you what I'll do for you: I'll respond as if this were, in fact, a doctoral thesis if you engage your brain and apply some basic rationality to your positionings. Only deal I'll make you.

"Two words for you VITRIOLIC DIATRIBE"

Yeah, your reponses *have* been pretty vitriolic, though not as wet-pantied as most I've run across here.

But I don't expect much more from True Believers of any stripe. People who are partisan supporters of any political -ism are so desperate to denounce that which they do not like that they equate disagreement to personal insult. You simply cannot tell people "You are wrong and here's why" without having them hear "you are wrong *neener neener* and you're mother wears army boots".

You spent so much time worrying about the words I used to describe your wrongness that you didn't hear the description. Sorry, toots, that is the mark, right there, of someone clearly overmatched in the Intelligent Discussion game. ForGET about you even begining to consider whether the words I used were even accurate [they were and are].

And why? All because I said you were leaping to conclusions.

That there is just as much evidence for this chick having been abducted by aliens.

...sold into white slavery.

...drowned all on her own and washed away. ...which is the most plausible, frankly.

But still and again, you don't wish to hear that a stupid girl did stupid things to do herself in. You simply have to believe -- out of sympathy, prurient nobility, national pride, inate conspiratorializing, or whathaveyou -- that some sinister plot conspired to do her in, and through no fault of her own.

...because bad things do not happen to good people without bad people being behind it. Right?

If that weren't the case, you wouldn't have flown into such a snit by my suggesting it. You very obviously have a *personal* stake in this. I don't. I'm sorry I can be objective about something you can't be objective about. I really am. But it's not going to change the answer.

The only thing which will change the answer is new information -- which is [sorry, Windy] not forthcoming. Heckling by the amateurs who maintain 2+2=5 because they *reallyreallyreally* doesn't add a thing to a discussion.

There is a notional conspet of your kind of coffee-clatch "debate" style; it is called "proof by mutual consent". I do not and will not play that game. In fact, I enjoy the hell out of kicking over the game board when I see others playing it.

It insults my intelligence. Which is why I consider your ["your" == "all y'all"] comments to me to be vitriolic.

[(((Hysrangea)))]

forgot one while I was busily searching through the dictionary - http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=flame%20bait #:>

Yup, I got roped in, guess I am forgetting how crazy this blog got in the past.

Shield Up, Force field up too!!! LOL

[(((Hydrangea)))]

Ooops typo...(((Hydrangea)))

[Texasbelle4732]

Okay for you elitists who don't consider that "murder" was committed, let's use the term "manslaughter" or "involuntary manslaughter."

Natalie Holloway was most probably drinking too much and sowing some last wild oats before going off to college, however, her intoxicated state was most likely exacerbated by the introduction of GHB or something else of that nature in her drink(s). No female "asks" to have some testosterone challenged rich kid spike her drink so he can rape her without worrying that she's going to knee his underdeveloped manhood up around his larnyx.

I suspect we'll find at some point that either she died as a result of a chemical overdose and the body was disposed of or she was delivered into a human trafficking ring. Personally, as distasteful as it may be, I would almost rather the latter since it provides a remote chance of her still being alive.

That being said, if she is dead and the individuals in question are guilty in some fashion, they should pay the price. If at some point in the future she turns up alive and was a victim of human trafficking, the guilty parties should still pay.

At the risk of fanning the flame of rwilymz's amour-propre, give the grandstanding a rest. Personally, I hope you're not a Mensan, but if you are please tell me you're not part of the Gulf Coast chapter as I would rather not suffer that kind of embarrassment by association. Pity there are so many given to grandious opining just to make themselves feel superior.

[Sharon]

These guys are in serious trouble. I think Aruba is finally going to do something. For 2 reasons, their economy is no bouncing back because Natalie's family hasn't let the American consumer forget what happened. There is only so much protect the insiders they can do. The second reason is the FBI has them on cell phone and text messaging acknowledging the crime.
Aruba's back are going to be against the wall on this one. They can't play stupid forever. To give them the benefit of the doubt, bodies in the ocean are some of the hardest cases to prove. No real evidence just circumstantial. The cell phone records and text messages are real.

[Dax]

Yo, Billy, Mandy, and the other schitzed out usual suspects combined into a single loquacious poster! (Shan't bother to list them out as those who know ... know) Feels like home ... fingers are blistered already from scrolling the long, yet squeezably soft and surprisingly supple, roll. Couple hundred sheets I believe ...

Well, I'm off to wipe ... and read ... perhaps something with a bit more raw magnetism ...

[Princess D (stupid freaking name)]

I stand corrected; apologies are disregarded and ignored, so why bother....back to lurking periodically; Oh my new name, "Doris the Drama Queen from Openthread"(once again tooo stupid to pick a good name)....be back when I can buck up...heh!

It was fun...too thin skinned to not take things personally...c'est la vie! Thank you all for a great time! final issue....everyone figured out anyway I used to post as "danie". And no I am not feeling sorry for myself, should have known better than to post anywhere, stooooooopid danie, dani, candyazz,goofy giraffe....enjoy all!