Text 9375, 108 rader
Skriven 2010-07-22 09:37:43 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 9366 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Extortion?
==================
Hello Roy,

On Wednesday July 21 2010 14:42, you wrote to me:

 RW>>> But I'm not interested in your bridge, thus I don't care where
 RW>>> it is. :o)

 MvdV>> Ok, so give me EUR 100 and I will not tell you where it is.

 RW> Tell me where it is and if I find it there, I'll give you 100 EUR...

Give me half of it first. You can give me the rest when you found it.

 MvdV>> The Arubans did a fine job. Contrary to what seems to be normal
 MvdV>> in the US, the Dutch and Aruban legal systems do not operate on
 MvdV>> a "Roy Witt believes him to be guilty, so let's get him" basis.

 RW> If they didn't think he was guilty, why would they bother to detain
 RW> him and do an investigation at all?

Oh, they "thought" he was a suspect. Together with some others. But in a
civilised country like Aruba, courts do not convict on "think". They need
verifyable facts. There are no verifyable facts to indicate that a crime took
place. And so, as in all civilised countries, if there is no evidence against
the suspect they have to let him go.

Had they convicted him on "think", they would not have done their job.

 MvdV>> They investigated the case. Several people were held for
 MvdV>> questioning. No evidence of foul play emerged and so all those
 MvdV>> in custody were released. That is how things are done in a
 MvdV>> civilised country.

 RW> Except for the fact that they still claim that he's the prime suspect
 RW> in that case.

That is the theory. The practical reality is that there is no case.

 RW> Now that he's killed again, they're rethinking their case again.

There is no evidence that he killed "again". Better stay away from Aruban or
Dutch jurisdiction. JvdS's lawyer may file a slander charge against you.

 MvdV>> No, they charged him with murder because they did not believe
 MvdV>> his confession.

 RW> LOL! He made the confession after he was arrested for murder.

He confessed to manslaughter in the hope of a lighter sentence.

 RW> He then denied the confession,

Seeing that it would not work.

 RW> thinking he could get out of this dilemma. Wasn't he surprised when
 RW> the Peruvian judge denied his request to drop the confession?

You'd have to ask him.

Point is that contrary to what you claim, he did not confess to murder.

 MvdV>> They believed he did more than just kill her in a fit of rage.

 RW> Of course. Her body was so mutulated that they figured only a nutcase
 RW> would beat someone beyond what it would take to kill them.

If they believe him to be a nutcase, they can not try him for murder.

 MvdV>> What would the Peruvians know about what transpired on Aruba?

 RW> That wasn't the question.

The question was which source? You still have not provided a non US source.

 MvdV>> IOW you can not give a source.

 RW> I can, but will not...you can find it yourself with a little

You made the claim, the onus of proof is on you.

 RW> Which is why he's still on trial for murder in Peru.

Which has nothing to do with the disappearence of Natalee Holloway.

 MvdV>> Not going to happen because whatever happened to Holloway, it
 MvdV>> happened on Aruba, not in the US.

 RW> Will happen because his victim is an American. If the Arubans won't
 RW> prosecute him, the US will.

How many times do I have to explain it to you? The US takes the position that
they have jurisdiction because the alleged victim is a US citizen. In that
position they are alone however. No other country supports that position. So
the US will get no international cooperation for it. Specifically: extradition
requests will be denied.

 MvdV>> The US has no jurisdiction. No country will extradite to the US for
 MvdV>> a crime that happened on Aruba.

 RW> Watch and see.

You do that.


Cheers, Michiel

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