Text 10754, 148 rader
Skriven 2008-02-08 00:08:11 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Told ya so - Holloway ... again ...
===========================================
Hello Roy,

On Wednesday February 06 2008 11:14, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> I did not see a confession of murder. Mind you it was all in
 MvdV>> Dutch. Maybe your Babelfish barfed?

 RW> Actually, Vries was there to opine the coverage. I think his Dutch
 RW> and English is very good. But I also contacted my Dutch friend, Max
 RW> Altman, in San Diego and got his opinion of what was said. Max, born
 RW> and raised in the South Pacific Dutch island of Papua, New Guinea and
 RW> of Dutch parantage (his father worked for Dutch Shell) has several
 RW> language skills, all uropeon. He varified what Vries said.

So he confirmed that de Vries confessed the murder? Wow!

 MvdV>> Credibility and admissibility are two different things.

 RW> That's what the judge said when he admitted the film into evidence.

Your are making it up.

 MvdV>> What you heard was probably the wishful thinking of the
 MvdV>> prosecutor.

 RW> I heard the prosecutor talk during his interview, but he wasn't the
 RW> one who mentioned what the judge said.

So you did not hear the judge himself. Hearsay....

 MvdV>> You keep forgetting that the onus of proof is on the
 MvdV>> prosecution.

 RW> What does this have to do with Sloot being educated in the medical
 RW> field?

vdS' medical education is irrelevant, that is the point.

 MvdV>> It is the prosecution that will have to prove she was alive
 MvdV>> when she hit the water.

 RW> Any prosecutor can take what he says in the film and turn it into a
 RW> charge of negligent homicide. Homicide is murder, even in the
 RW> Netherlands.

Roy stop making a fool of yourself by pretending to be an expert on Dutch law.
You are totally wrong. Death by negligence is *not* murder in the Netherlands.

Death by negligence is a punishable offence (one year) but legally it is *not*
murder.

 MvdV>> whatever the charge is: the onus of proof is on the
 MvdV>> prosecution....

 RW> Of course. But a confession is all the proof they need.

Wrong! How many times do I have to tell you that by Dutch law a confession
alone is *not* enough for a conviction?

 MvdV>> he did not say "dangerous". The translator at Fox nust have
 MvdV>> made that up.

 RW> Vries speaks fluent Dutch, does he not?

What does de Vries have to do with it?  I heard the lawyer, he did not say
"dangerous".

 RW>>> He is the instigator of that crime. He won't be charged as the
 RW>>> assessory.

 MvdV>> You keep forgetting that it is *Dutch* law that applies.....

 RW> You keep forgetting that he is the prime suspect...

When the man with the boat turns up and it can be proven that he was the one
who dumped her into the sea, he will become the prime suspect.

 MvdV>> At the time he thought she was dead. Are you saying that does
 MvdV>> not count?

 RW> Right, it doesn't count.

That's odd. Not so long ago we discussed the case of a young man who was on his
way to meet a 50 year old police officer that he thought was a fourteen year
old girl. He spend two years in jail because he *thought* it was 14 year old
girl an dthought was what counted.

But now thought does not count?

 RW> His duty would have been to take her to a medical facility.

He didn't. The associated crime would be: "verlating van hulpbehoevenden".

 RW> He didn't because he either murdered her

Conjecture...

 RW> and this latest BS is just that, BS - or he's lying again.

Lying is not a crime.

 RW>>> But he probably won't forget the compensation he'll be forced to
 RW>>> pay for a wrongful death.

 MvdV>> You keep forgetting it is Dutch law... Ah well never mind.

 RW> Thank you...btw, the reference to compensation will occur under US
 RW> law.

Try collecting from a Dutch citizen residing in The Netherlands...

 MvdV>> The inside of the car was not n area accessible to the general
 MvdV>> public and hence it is "private property" in the legal sense.

 RW> That's right, the private property of the people who put the camaras
 RW> in it...their perogative.

Wrong. They can put the cameras in. But they may not use them to secretly
videotape people. That's the law here. Period.

 MvdV>> By secretly videotaping the conversation with Joran van der
 MvdV>> Sloot, Peter R. de Vries and his accomplice committed a crime
 MvdV>> for which the maximum penalty is nine month in prison....

 RW> They have yet to be charged...I guess that means they probably won't
 RW> be charged with that crime in the name of justice in Aruba.

If they are charged, they will be charged in The Netherland as it was there
that the interviews took place.

 RW>>>  They can do what they want with their own property.

 MvdV>> You keep forgetting...

 RW> You keep forgetting that it's their property...

You keep forgetting that it is Dutch law that applies....

 RW> course your next claim will be that the state can confiscate that
 RW> property because it was used in an alleged crime.

Now that you mention it.. I think they actually can...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)