Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Ginger 'may fight ovarian cancer' | Main | Democratization--The Implicit If-Then of the Iraq War »

April 17, 2006

HarryTho 4/17 Natalee Holloway Commentary

Topics: Natalee Holloway

After perusing some of the blogs, it seems necessary to discuss the most likely prime mover in this renaissance of the Natalee Holloway case.

First, let us recall that a lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The lawsuit alleges some spectacular activity against the Defendants. The allegations, though candidates for a murder-mystery award, acquire some credence when a former prosecutor avers a pattern of behavior and an experience police chief announces his "gut" conclusion that the defendants committed the crimes. Accordingly, we can expect fireworks from the defendants' counsel in his effort to contradict these authority figures.

Second, all the latest cable news network revelations, with the exception of a alleged break-in of Natalee's room, were available to the Aruban Law Enforcement, if not all the blogs, early on in the case. Some of these revelations ... without pictures ... originated from the first few days of the investigation. Consequently, none of what the cable news networks are airing is new. All of these items and individuals were known, and presumably interviewed and appraised, by the Aruban investigators.

So, why the sudden concern and publicity?

If the lawsuit has to be adjudicated in the state of New York, then the plaintiffs have three important issues in their command: 1) the defendants were the last one's seen with the victim; 2) the police chief is on record that the defendants are guilty; and 3) a former prosecutor avers a pattern of behavior attributed to the defendants. Even though the wild allegations in the 102254/2006 defy reasonable reception, the three items in command of the plaintiffs will prevail.

Specifically: Joran has a history of engaging in such activity. He was the last one seen with the victim. And, the police chief thinks he did it. Circumstantial evidence condemns Joran. Clearly, from the evidence, a court could never prove he did it; however, a 50% majority vote would tend to believe that he did it. Currently over 70% of Americans polled believe that Joran is guilty.

In order to subvert the current holding of the plaintiffs, the defendants' counsel need to provide an alternate scenario and discredit the police chief and the former prosecutor. This action to discredit is what are witnessing.

First, Joe Tacopina and his staff are reassembling the evidence of the case in order to materialize an alternate and persuasive scenario of how Natalee could have disappeared. Please note that the Aruban investigators already discounted this evidence and subsequent scenario. That is no matter. As long as the possibility exists that the evidence that Joe Tacopina and his staff reassemble produces a reasonable scenario for Natalee's disappearance, then that will suffice to oppose the story presented in 102254/2006. Of course, the better Joe Tacopina's story unfolds, then the better it will persuade a jury. Of special interests is if Joe Tacopina's story reflects poorly upon the reason his clients were singled out by Aruban authorities.

Second, any connection of the parties in Joe Tacopina's story with any member of the Aruban investigative team will raise suspicions about the intentions of the Aruban investigators. Did they suppress evidence and/or witnesses' testimony in order to protect their kin?

Third, Joe Tacopina will strive to obtain affidavits from witnesses allegedly aligned with the plaintiffs. Though this seems a rough route upon which to embark, it is not done so directly, Joe Tacopina's staff will research these witnesses' friends and associates. Any dung in their background will surface and be brought to their attention. Amazingly, Joe Tacopina's staff will have amassed a mountain of information, positive and negative, about the plaintiff's witnesses. His staff will conduct "missionary" forays into the lives of these witnesses, well before they are approached directly. The word, so to speak, will be conveyed in a comprehensible and persuasive a rhetoric as possible that the witnesses are in for trouble. When the witnesses have been primed, so to speak, a formal meeting will occur in which the easiest solution will be to speak the truth or face the consequences. If a recantation is required, it will be made very clear that it is better to recant before trial than to be charged with perjury and civil law suits. Naturally, Joe Tacopina's staff will "understand" that the witnesses were pressured (or enticed) to testify by the plaintiffs (or their agents) ... an understanding as sweet as that first taste of a ripe strawberry, dipped in brown sugar and grand manier creme, when it slips into your mouth and explodes with flavor onto your taste buds. C'est si bon!

Accordingly, what we are witnessing in this pseudo-renaissance of the Natalee Holloway case is Joe Tacopina and his staff doing what they do best. Do they need to do this? Yes, they do!

When John Q. Kelly filed a premature lawsuit, citing the rants and raves of Beth Twitty's Diary, Joe Tacopina was compelled to expose the ridiculousness. When John Q. Kelly enclosed Helen LaJuez affidavit, attesting to Joran's predatory behavior, Joe Tacopina had to expose Helen LaJuez as a liar and her mystery-witness as a fraud. When Police Chief Dompig announced that he knew the defendants were guilty, Joe Tacopina had to discredit the police chief and expose at least the chimera of a sinister agenda.

Now, do any of these allegations or alternate scenarios need to be factual? Absolutely not! All Joe Tacopina has to do is to provide alternate scenarios with alternate agendas. Of course, we would like to resolve the case; however, the ridiculous lawsuit 102254/2006 has sent this adventure (mystery) into the Twilight Zone of legal entertainment. In other words, we have lifted off from reality. Now, we are condemned to the imaginations of John Q. Kelly and Joe Tacopina!.

In one respect, we should consider ourselves saved. We have outlasted Jossy Mansur!

In closing, the cable news networks will welcome this renaissance, as they would welcome any rating-busting news. Do they care if what they air is all hype? Of course not, it is all about ratings. The cable news networks will institute panels in order to gauge the roller coaster ride of the Kelly-Tacopina crime drama episodes.

So, there is no need to get excited ... unless someone confesses or Natalee runs out of money and comes home!

With Aloha,

Posted by HarryTho at April 17, 2006 9:22 PM



Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: