February 26, 2006
HarryTho 2/26 Natalee Holloway CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
Today I thought I would continue with my deconstruction of the lawsuit 102254/2006. In the previous editorial, we explored Allegations 11,12 and 13. The allegations concentrated on Joran van der Sloot being a predator who used the drug ecstacy in order to date-rape blonde, American tourist women. Since our last editorial, Ted Williams, a defense attorney and former homicide detective in a Metropolitan area, insists that sanction should be brought against the lawyers in 102254/2006 if Allegation 13 cannot be proven. I tend to agree. Allegation 13 attaches a loathsome reputation to Joran van der Sloot. If this specific allegations is mere rumor, then I would go further than Ted Williams and ask the lawyers be disbarred for allowing this allegation into 102254/2006.
Part B The Predator Allegation 14: Joran's proclivities were known, at a young age, to both of his parents, Paulus van der Sloot and his wife, Anita.
In order for Allegation 14 to have any chance of merit, Allegations 11, 12 and 13 would need to be proven. After all, if Joran did not administer ecstacy to young women, then it follows that Allegation 14 consists of total nonsense. Even possessing some surety in Allegations 11, 12 and 13, it remains yet another hurdle in order to connect the parents to any knowledge of this activity.
Allegation 15: As recent as May 2005, Joran was receiving counseling for his problems.
This is an interesting allegation. It seems to follow Allegations 11, 12, 13, and 14; however, it has a stand alone quality which separates it from the other allegations in Part B. Specifically, the reader is induced to connect Allegations 11, 12, 13 and 14 with 15 by simple mental inertia. Yet, Allegation 15 expands the connotations contained in Allegations 11, 12, 13 and 14 by omitting any qualifier to the word: problems.
Joran could have been receiving counseling for an array of problems. As I understand from rumor, Joran had undergone some anger management counseling. Clearly, anger management falls far short of predatory by drugging young females. Also, I find it a great leap that his psychological counseling concerned raping of young women.
I would have to conclude that the plaintiffs stretch of connecting drugging and date-raping into psychological counseling is but another product of their imaginations. Allegation 15 may have merit for some minor form of psychological counseling, but certainly not for predatory behavior with drugging and date-raping of young women. Please keep in mind that many teenagers ... mostly those from affluent families ... visit psychological counselors for perceived problems during their high school years. I seriously doubt the reason for any of them is predatory before, because they drug and rape their classmates.
Allegation 16: In May 2005, Joran resided in his parents home in Aruba.
This allegation seems meaningless, but it would serve to make a connection whereby Joran would have been witnessed by his parents quite often during each day. The facts, reported and observed on the cable news networks, are that Joran lived in a separate house, adjacent to the Van der Sloot's home. Here the plaintiffs select the word: home, in order to erase the reality of two separate houses. This fact was not omitted by the Aruban investigators when they searched Joran's house (or home). The Aruban investigators did not search the Van der Sloot home.
Allegation 16, to me, is an attempt to blur the Van der Sloot home situation in order to encompass Joran into the house in which his parents resided. This is yet another word game by the plaintiffs. Apparently, they felt the need to express the notion that Joran was under his parents supervision continually by stating that he resided in their house. Well, it is not true. Joran resided in another, distinctly, separate house.
Part B Page 4 Allegation 17: Despite being aware of their son's dangerous tendencies, Joran's parents did nothing to control him, or to protect potential victims from him.
Once again, Allegation 17, depends up the voracity of Allegations 11, 12, 13, and 14. If any of those allegations prove deficient, then Allegation 17 goes the way of Allegations 15 and 16. The plaintiffs must make the case that Joran was a predator and that his parents knew it, before Allegation 17 can even be considered. This a standard "If-Then" statement. If the "If" part is false, then it makes little matter what the "Then" part contends.
Allegation 18: To the contrary, Joran's parents turned a blind eye to their son's violent and anti-social lifestyle and, if in many ways, encouraged and enabled it.
Allegation 18 is as chancy as Allegation 17. Allegation 18 is merely an extension of the "Then" part of Allegation 17. It is a meaningless allegation without a valid premise with Allegations 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Allegation 19: Although Joran was 17 years old in May 2005 -- under the legal age for gambling and alcohol consumption in Aruba -- his parents allowed him to spend much of his leisure time in island bars and casinos, consuming alcohol; playing poker; blackjack and other games of chance; and trawling for victims. In fact, Joran frequently used his father's line of credit at island casinos, and was often accompanied by his father when Joran went out drinking and gambling..
These two links, Aruba Casinos and Aruba Nightlife - suggest that the legal age for gambling is 18, as well as, the legal age for the consumption of alcohol. However, they not accurate. The minimum age to enter a casino is 18; whereas, the minimum age for gaming may be closer to 21.
Aruba Grand Beach Resort & Silvermoon Casino - Casino City
Minimum Age for Entrance (Minimum Gaming Age 21)
Renaissance Aruba Beach Resort & Crystal & Seaport Casinos - Casino City
Minimum Age for Entrance (Minimum Gaming Age 18)
Holiday Inn SunSpree Aruba Resort & Excelsior Casino - Casino City
The Excelsior Casino neglects to print a minimum entrance or gaming age. This may have to do with poker tournaments at the Casino in which it has been reported that competitors under the age of 18 are permitted to play.
Since the only report of Joran gaming occurred at the Excelsior Hotel, and as I recall it was a tournament day, he could have been playing blackjack under one of the permitted days for underage players. The gambling allegation may need additional support. However, I would be tempted to grant that Joran did gamble and consume alcohol under the age of 18. Whether that age is a true benchmark for local residents is another matter. Some Aruban posters have indicated that for certain alcoholic beverages the age is 16. And, I remember a time when certain states held different ages as a benchmark between 3.2 beer and full 6.0 beer.
The comment that Joran went trawling for victims in island bars and casinos will need substantive support. The allegation that Joran's father accompanied him in this trawling will likewise need even further support. As for the use of his father's line of credit, it does seem to follow that if the casinos allowed Joran to game, then they would be doing so under the understanding that his father would be responsible for his debts. If this statement is true, then it is obvious that the casinos knew Joran and his age, leading to a conclusion that the minimum gaming age could be relaxed for certain individuals. Of course, the casinos would not likely provide entrance and credit lines to an underage predator who was known to drug and rape young women. A practice like that would not make for a good advertisement.
Accordingly, if Joran was allowed to game and consume alcohol inside island casinos and bars, I can only conclude that he was deemed a responsible adult and in no way considered a loathsome predator, as alleged by the plaintiffs in 102254/2006.
Allegation 20: On the afternoon of May 29 in particular, Paulus van der Sloot personally delivered and accompanied his underage son Joran to one of Aruba's casinos in order that both of them could, as they had many times in the past, play in a poker tournament. It was at that casino that Joran first met Natalee.
I believe that this allegation is true, to the best of my knowledge. It could be improved with: it was the first time that female students from the Kingdom of Mountain Brook approached Joran, as he played blackjack. Natalee was one of those students. The ABC News video, covering the scene at the Excelsior Casino blackjack table, confirms this meeting.
Allegation 21: Joran would frequently leave his parents home late at night and head to the island bars, hotels and casinos.
This allegation contains the notion of high frequency, an idea of home and a preferred destination. First, Joran lived separately in his own home, as discussed in Allegation 16. Accordingly, if he left, he left his home and not his parents home. Second, the idea of high frequency would need substantiation. What is met by the word: frequently, employed in Allegation 21? Does it mean every night, every other night, twice a week, etc? The word: frequently, could be argued ad infinitum. Lastly, how do the plaintiffs intend to support his frequency to the island bars, casinos and hotels?
To me, there are too many variables in Allegation 21 to take it seriously. I can envision charts being used to support the frequency of going out at night versus the times he went to bars, hotels and casinos. This allegation will become a nightmare for the plaintiffs to support.
Allegation 22: Joran's parents knew of his late night escapades, but did nothing to stop him, allowing to leave the house unsupervised, night after night after night.
Allegation 22 is an extension of Allegation 21 as Allegation 18 was to Allegation 17. First, the burden of proof must prevail on Allegation 21, before any discussion upon Allegation 22 can be commenced. If Allegation 22 can be considered, proof will be required in order to substantiate that Joran's parents were aware of his night after night after night forays. If anyone thought Allegation 21 would be a mountain to ascend, Allegation 22 commences at the summit of Allegation 21.
Pages 4 -5 Allegation 23: Joran's parents also knew that he possessed, and frequently used, a VIP Pass for a local island nightclub called Carlos' n Charlie's (C&C). Joran's parents knew that he used this pass to facilitate his underage drinking and his habitual stalking of women. On the night of 29 May and early morning hours of May 30, 2005, Joran engaged in further contact with Natalee at C&C.
Allegation 23 may be true in the sense that C&C issued him a VIP Pass. Whether or not his parents were aware that he possessed this pass will need to be proved. As for whether or not he stalked women at C&C is another matter, as well. It may not be difficult to prove that Joran got access to C&C from time to time; however, it is another matter to prove that a 17 year old stalked women in the nightclub. I doubt he was inside the nightclub long enough to be identified as a stalker. Clearly, there would need to be police reports ... a documented investigation into his activities would be nicer ... of his stalking inside the club. I seriously doubt that any such hint to the Aruban police was even written down in their notes.
Furthermore, I feel compelled to add that Joran, being a well-manner, 6' 5", handsome, slender, blue-eyed Dutchman may have been provided a VIP Pass from C&C for reasons more related to his attractiveness to young American females than to any of the allegations contained in 102254/2006.
I believe, we can grant that Natalee Holloway engaged with Joran van der Sloot on the night of 29 May and the early morning of the 30 May 2005 at C&C. Although I find it difficult to believe that a stalker takes jelly shots off his victim's belly.
Allegation 24: On the night of 29 May and early morning hours of May 30, 2005, this wholly permissive environment that passed as the van der Sloot home had dire consequences for Natalee Holloway.
Allegation 24 passes as the same stretch of imagination as Allegations 14-23. Unless Allegations 11, 12 and 13 can be ascertained, the egregious implications of Allegations 14-24 amount to nothing but evil chimeras. The equation that these All Hallow's Eve derivatives have any bases in reality only tempt the imagination with humor.
From the foregoing, the entire Part B, entitled The Predator, of 102254/2006 relies on Joran dispensing the drug ecstacy to young women and raping them. To date, no such substantive evidence exists that any such activity ever took place. It is one thing to possess verifiable reports of such activity; however, it is quite another to chase nothing but rumors in the wind.
In short summary, Part B of 102254/2006 can be reduced to a simple "IF-THEN" statement: i.e., IF it is sunny tomorrow morning, THEN I will take you to play golf. The "IF contains the crucial factor: Did Joran drug and date-rape young women? That factor must be true, if any of the other allegations are to taken seriously, other than humor.
I will commence Part C: Joran meets Natalee tomorrow evening.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at February 26, 2006 10:36 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 2/26 Natalee Holloway Commentary - Feb 26, 2006