Peru - Stephany Flores, 21, murdered in Lima hotel room, 30 May 2010 #20

She also dominates the conversation on the Pauw & Witteman show, at least in comparison to Paulus.

From 'Loving Natalee' - Beth Holloway:

Page 147-151: The mission of meeting people and handing out the Ecclesiastes prayer cards and the beautiful colourful bracelets gives me a reason to get up and keep going. FOX anchor Greta Van Susteren wants to come along, as many of the network reps have done over the past few weeks. We’re going to the other end of the island today, near the van der Sloot neighbourhood, to ask for information. And help.

As I reach to put a prayer card into the van der Sloot mailbox, I see someone on the side of the house and call out, “Anybody home? Hello! You’ve go company! Knock, knock! Anybody home?”

A man is behind the shrubs against the house. “I see you there in the bushes.” He freezes. “I’m Natalee’s mom. I just want to give you a prayer card.”

Paulus van der Sloot has to be coaxed out of the bushes like a dog in trouble. He appears from behind the shrubs and comes to the gate. I hand him one of Natalee’s prayer cards over the fence.

Surprisingly, he says, “Come in, please. Stop the cameras, okay? Stop the cameras.”

Greta and I lock eyes for a moment, and with no hint of hesitation on her part we go inside. Through the front door we make our way across the tile floor, passing through a nicely decorated living room, under an archway, to an enclosed back-porch area. We step down to a table and chairs. Paulus’s wife, Joran’s mother Anita, is here. There’s no glass in the multiple window openings in this room, just wooden slats. And the air moves comfortably through the area. The wind blows hard all the time in Aruba, and it’s breezy in here, well ventilated. Paulus sits closest to the air flow. I sit across from him, in close proximity. Anita is on my left. Greta is next to Paulus, her body turned toward him.

Anita tells us all about Joran and what a good boy he is. How smart he is. I let her go on and on, as this gives me time to listen, look, assess. And as she continues, she begins to share with us what a difficult time they have had with him recently. How he exhibits oppositional defiance and is disrespectful to his mother. How they are beginning to lose control of him as he sneaks out at night and comes and goes as he pleases. After about thirty minutes she concludes by telling us Joran is seeing a psychologist for his defiant behaviour.

Now it’s my turn. I have no intention of matching her good-boy remarks with good-girl comments. And cut to the chase. Graphically repeating the very words said by their son a couple of weeks ago in his statements made on June 9, 10, and 13. The vile account that was read to me in the attorney general’s office. The equally explicit words used by Joran to describe what he did to Natalee. Calmer than I have ever been in my whole life and without blinking, I tell them which fingers he said he used. Where he said he put them. How their son described my daughter’s pubic area, her underwear. How Joran said she was falling asleep and waking up, falling asleep and waking up. I tell them of his conflicting stories of what happened, the different places he said it happened. Little beads of sweat form across Paulus’s brow and forehead.

My arms rest on top of the investigation notebook I carry with me all the time. Natalee’s reward poster with her picture on it is inside the front clear cover, in plain view. Paulus’s arms are on the table. Our knuckles are only inches apart arms are shaking. His fists are clenched.

“You’re responsible for Aruba being trapped in hell,” I tell him, still calm. “You can change that. But Aruba will stay in a perpetual state of hell until you come forward.”

I gently push the notebook toward him so he can see Natalee. Anita remains silent. The breeze is blowing ever cooler through the room now, yet the sweat on Paulus is increasing.

“How did Joran get home that night, Paulus?” He responds that he doesn’t know. “Did he go to school the next day?” He responds again that he doesn’t know.

Greta and I have many questions. “you mean this is the most critical time in your son’s life – he is being held on suspicion of kidnap and murder – and you don’t know how he got home or if he went to school?”

Paulus stammers when he answers. He hesitates. He sounds unnatural and blinks rapidly. His head is down. The beads of sweat turn to bubbles that grow together and gather under his chin, then drop – splash – onto the table below.

Pulling a couple of prayer bracelets out of my pocket, I offer them to the van der Sloots. First I tie one on Anita’s arm, then ask Paulus if he would like one. He lifts his clench-fisted arm, shaking as if he has Parkinson’s disease, and tries very hard to hold it up. What a pathetic form of a man he is, I think – a very different person from the one who stood so brazenly in his front yard in the wee hours that first morning, facing down Aruban police and our men from home. I take my time tying the bracelet, very, very slowly, and explain the meaning of the three cords of yarn.

“Paulus, this bracelet stands for a Bible verse. It’s Ecclesiastes 4:12. “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three stands is not quickly broken.”” I finish the tying and gently pat the knot. “There you go.”

And right then the bracelet looks different to me. I see the three cords as the suspects, and the knot as the end holding them together as Paulus. It’s not just clear – it’s crystal clear. There are potentially four people who know what happened to Natalee. We need the knot to come loose and the three to unravel.

Anita gets a kitchen towel and first blots Paulus’s head. Then she lays it on the pools of sweat that have formed on the table in front of him and, in one big swipe, folds the towel over and cleans it away.

No one could have predicted that this encounter would take place. And if Greta Van Susteren had not been there, I would not have gone inside.

A few days later Paulus is arrested and questioned by Aruban police after they say he changed his story about what time he picked up Joran on the night Natalee disappeared.

ha ... a little ways behind.. but I felt I had to post this....http://www.flayme.com/troll/ cguru :shocked2:

Originally Posted by suzihawk [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5340606#post5340606"] [/ame]

Oh gosh... well, one incident comes to mind where Beth and Greta were invited into the Vandersloot home. According to both Beth and Greta, Anita completely dominated the conversation proclaiming her son's innocence and what a good boy he was while Paulus sat silent at the table and perspired so heavily that it splashed onto the table. During this conversation, Anita described in great (sexual) detail JVS's version of what happened to Natalee on the beach, including describing Natalee's underwear while holding her hands out as if she were holding the underwear in her own hands. It was enough for Greta to comment that it was cringe worthy as to make Greta want to 'crawl under the table'.

This was mentioned in Beth's book as well as in the following:

Click to expand...

No actually the sexual content was discussed by Beth not Anita. There was a detailed explanation at the Scrux forum back when it happened. I provide the following link as proof:

http://scrux.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3561&highlight=crawl+table#3561

hollyblue said:

I'd like to know every little thing JVS said while around him tho and if he knew other people involved with Joran and where Joran spent any off time? You can get to know someone very well in two weeks...and Joran loved to talk.

Click to expand...

Just roughly going through his statement to police, EG claims that he did not know Joran, he only played poker with him at the Atlantic City casino.

Here is the rough translation of his actual answer..

I do not have a friend, only know him by sight and have played poker with this free table in Atlantic City casino

He appears to have stated that he spent more time with Stephany in three different casinos.

Neither Joran or Stephany were registered in the main tournament according to EG. The registered players were among the 300 top players in the world, of which EG was one of them.

Again, here is a rough translation of his answer...

The persons listed above, are not registered in the championship, there are only 300 top players from around the world who has participated in this event, which I find myself participating


He also claimed that he never entered room 309 at the Tac Hotel and that Joran got his cell phone number from another poker player. I'm assuming that Joran called his phone at some time (no clarification if they ever actually spoke to each other) and the number was listed in the incoming call list.

The translation of that answer is really bad but there is another article that someone posted earlier that states the same thing, along with both of the phone numbers.

That if in is registered, being 99244954, I mind that this person, I call my cell and told you what had become my number through another player, with this I keep on the agenda of my cell.


It also states at the beginning of the statement that he is 35 (June 20, 1975) and is married. I think someone was wondering about that.

froginTtown said:

ha ... a little ways behind.. but I felt I had to post this....http://www.flayme.com/troll/ cguru :shocked2:

Click to expand...

Yes...we have one in our midst, me thinks!!

Apollo1 said:

Originally Posted by suzihawk


No actually the sexual content was discussed by Beth not Anita. There was a detailed explanation at the Scrux forum back when it happened. I provide the following link as proof:

http://scrux.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3561&highlight=crawl+table#3561

Click to expand...

Thank you - you're right as shown in the excerpt of Beth's book I just posted. I'll go back and edit my post.

I do think there was an incident where Anita was describing Natalee's underwear while illustrating with her hands, however. I don't have a link so take that for what it's worth.

Apollo1 said:

Originally Posted by suzihawk


No actually the sexual content was discussed by Beth not Anita. There was a detailed explanation at the Scrux forum back when it happened. I provide the following link as proof:

http://scrux.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3561&highlight=crawl+table#3561

Click to expand...

That is two entirely different things and instances that Scrux combined and spun into the same one conversation. Anita describing sexual content and what Beth wrote in her book are separate instances and separate parts of their conversations. What Greta said happened is the truth.

suzihawk said:

From 'Loving Natalee' - Beth Holloway:

Page 147-151: The mission of meeting people and handing out the Ecclesiastes prayer cards and the beautiful colourful bracelets gives me a reason to get up and keep going. FOX anchor Greta Van Susteren wants to come along, as many of the network reps have done over the past few weeks. We’re going to the other end of the island today, near the van der Sloot neighbourhood, to ask for information. And help.

As I reach to put a prayer card into the van der Sloot mailbox, I see someone on the side of the house and call out, “Anybody home? Hello! You’ve go company! Knock, knock! Anybody home?”

A man is behind the shrubs against the house. “I see you there in the bushes.” He freezes. “I’m Natalee’s mom. I just want to give you a prayer card.”

Paulus van der Sloot has to be coaxed out of the bushes like a dog in trouble. He appears from behind the shrubs and comes to the gate. I hand him one of Natalee’s prayer cards over the fence.

Surprisingly, he says, “Come in, please. Stop the cameras, okay? Stop the cameras.”

Click to expand...

Snipped by me

Thanks, again! I really didn't mean to put you to all this trouble...but this information is a big help in understanding Paulus.

suzihawk said:

Thank you - you're right as shown in the excerpt of Beth's book I just posted. I'll go back and edit my post.

I do think there was an incident where Anita was describing Natalee's underwear while illustrating with her hands, however. I don't have a link so take that for what it's worth.

Click to expand...

I honestly do not think so and I have no idea why Greta wanted to muck this up. It is clear that Beth went into the detail and she even discusses it in her book. I have never seen any place where Anita has and if there is such a link I would like to have it.

FLNY said:

Snipped by me

Thanks, again! I really didn't mean to put you to all this trouble...but this information is a big help in understanding Paulus.

Click to expand...

You know it's been my experience with many cultures, particularily European, that while the husband is outwardly perceived as the head of the household and the domineering partner, the real "brains and control" behind the family is the wife. And in a lot of the families I have personally known, the wife was incredibly lenient towards "behaviours" in both the sons and the husband with the attitude of "boys will be boys" so to speak. The husband was almost treated as one of the children rather than a partner. In this case, this was the only woman in a family of four men so it would make her a sort of matriarch of that family I would think and she would consider it her job to "take care of them".

Like I said, I know nothing of the case or the family but am just going by oberservations in my own personal life.

MOO

Apollo1 said:

I honestly do not think so and I have no idea why Greta wanted to muck this up. It is clear that Beth went into the detail and she even discusses it in her book. I have never seen any place where Anita has and if there is such a link I would like to have it.

Click to expand...

Since I wasn't privy to the conversation between Beth, Greta and Anita, I wouldn't know. All I'm saying is that I recall reading that Anita described the underwear in such detail as to describe the embroidering on it. What her purpose for doing so is beyond me. Maybe she was relating what was told to her by her son? I don't know. ??

I can tell you this... if I put credibility in any of the three present during that conversation, Anita would be at the bottom of that list.

Incidentally, the poster 'medleyrelay' is well known as a long time staunch Vandersloot supporter and personal friend who also goes by several different aliases. Just sayin'...

Hmm...

Unreals said:

Let me clarify this- I didn't rely on any of Joran's testimony in arriving at my conclusions about the Holloway case. I don't pick and choose what to believe in terms of all he has said- I really think his stories are almost worthless at this point, due to all the varying accounts. I understand that's one of the main reasons people so strongly believe him to be guilty; after all, why else would he be lying?

I really can't go into all of this, because it's fairly complex and, I hate to mention it again, but I do have to save some things for the book, if it ever comes out. However, I will say that I don't even necessarily accept Joran's own testimony that he went to the beach with Natalee. I strongly suspect that he was not the last person to be with Natalee that night. Whether he even realizes that, or ever did, or is now capable of telling the truth, I can't honestly say.

I didn't arrive at the conclusion that Joran wasn't responsible for Natalee's disappearance through anything he ever said, but through other evidence.

Click to expand...

There is in my opinion one thing you are not taking into consideration. With Joran's father being a judge, the chief of police a very close friend of his, Joran was more likely be be in the position of framing someone else. People with connections usually aren't the framees, but the framers. The more influence someone is capable of exerting, the less apt they are to be framed.

Seeing as how at the time of NH's disappearance, Joran was a juvenile, he didn't have influence, but his father certainly did. It follows then that someone would have been very stupid to try to frame Joran while his father was living. If Joran's father thought his son was being framed, he was in a position to have Aruban authorities locate that person and bring him to trial. So why didn't that happen? The reality is Joran was guilty, and it was all his father could do to get him released. That he could accomplish that much both shows and tells us the extent of the influence the father was able to exert.

I wonder how many people who've been framed for something can exert that kind of power? If they could, they wouldn't be framed, eh?

FLNY said:

Yes...we have one in our midst, me thinks!!

Click to expand...

OH YEAH.... :furious: thanks for pointing me in that direction....GREAT CATCH...!!!!

cat thief said:

I don't think they were cheating. My thing is, if they were, Joran would have already told the police about this as the reason he had to kill her. If they were cheating it's much less of a crime than murder and he would have used this information to his advantage in some way.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Joran's gambling addiction would prevent him from saying he was cheating as that would get him barred from casinos in the future. No, that's not a risk he would be willing to take. He is however, stupid enough to believe if he was able to avoid murder charges before, he could do it again or failing that, he could get off if charged. Nope, he wants those gambling doors left open to him no matter whatever the other costs might be to him.

I know it has been discussed that the white tin that was photographed with the items that were supposedly given to the cab driver was possibly powder henna but I noticed that in his confession, Joran said that he had given the cab drivers 2 bottles of "perfume".

Is it possible that the white tin is some type of cologne? I know Versace uses a tin for packaging of it's blue, white and black jeans cologne and I think there is another cologne called Curve that comes in a tin.

He also says that he gave them several shirts, and a pair of jeans. Was just wondering if maybe the other picture of the t-shirts, jeans and shorts was other items given to the cab drivers rather than items found in the hotel room.

Sounds to me like he just gave them his whole beige duffel bag and all of the items that were in it and maybe his watch, camera and cell phone. He also rambles on I think about getting their phone number so he can get his stuff back, well at least the watch, so is that what really happened? He gave them his bag as "collateral" until he could come up with the extra $500 he owed them? Since most bank machines only dispense $500 as a daily limit, was he planning on going back to the ATM the following day after having depleted his daily limit with the first $500 he drew out, getting the money and calling the cab drivers to meet him to get his stuff back?

I wonder what happened if that was the case. And I wonder whose account he was taking that money from. Perhaps at that point both his and Stephany's accounts were frozen so he couldn't get any money and couldn't get his stuff back?

Expert: Van der Sloot's Legal Strategies Are Baffling

Accused murderer Joran van der Sloot's legal strategy is doomed to failure and an appeal of his reported confession won't succeed, an international defense expert says.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...sloots-legal-strategies-are-baffling/19533765

Linda7NJ said:

I was taught how to play poker at 6-7 years old, complete with betting (pennies & nickles). I see nothing wrong with that. I was never much of a gambler. I won about $600.00 when I was about 18 in Atlantic City...I have not been back inside a casino since I prefer a friendly game with friends.

I've taught my own son how to play as well as bet when he was 8. I believe education goes a long way to curbing compulsive gambling.

Click to expand...

When my brother was about 15 my father bet him he couldn't hit the kitchen door with a rubber band. My brother did and so my father kept going double or nothing with him until my brother was up to about $250. He missed on the next try and my dad walked away. My brother has frequently pointed to that as being a very important lesson for him.

Unreals said:

No, I have no connection to Joran or his family. I've never met or communicated with any of them.

I can only speak for myself, but I came to believe in Joran's innocence in the Holloway case by analysis of the evidence. Joran's testimony actually doesn't play much of a role in my thinking at all. I have stated my belief that he is a habitual liar. However, I think his chronic lying really went into overdrive a few years ago, when he first realized he could profit from giving sensationalist accounts of what happened to Natalee.

Was he a nice guy for doing that? Of course not. Did he display little or no empathy for Natalee and her family as he told his stories? Absolutely. You won't find me condoning his behavior. However, like the Aruban authorities, I recognized immediately that each of his stories was a wild yarn, told only for the purpose of getting paid. I think the reason he could confidently tell these tales-two of which were terribly self-incriminating-is because he knows that he didn't cause Natalee to disappear, and has nothing to fear even if he gives them yet another location for her body.

I am not here to say that Joran is a nice guy, an upstanding citizen or even that he's mentally balanced at this point. I really don't know that he is, although I wouldn't perform an amateur psychoanalysis on him, like all the unprofessional "experts" feel comfortable in doing on t.v. He clearly has at least a powerful gambling addiction, and a lack of principles where money is concerned. How far would he go for money? I don't really know, but I don't think there is any evidence that someone would have paid him to kill either Natalee or Stephany.

Looking at the whole picture, and factoring the Natalee Holloway case into it, I find the entire sequence of events in Peru to be suspicious. I've explained the various points of contention in several posts here. Ultimately, I don't think Joran will live to stand trial. If he does go to trial, there is no question that he will be convicted. Thus, for those of us who don't believe he is a murderer, we can only try to make our points in public- on forums like this, and hopefully eventually in a book.

Could I be wrong about Joran? Sure. It would really disappoint me to find out he's actually guilty of murder, because I've devoted a lot of time and effort into researching the Holloway case, and to defending him on that and against the charges in Peru, on this and other forums. No one likes to admit they're wrong, when they've expended such energy defending a view they're completely confident in- as I am about this.

I have no vested interest in Joran being innocent, except perhaps that his guilt would necessarily change the entire tone of my book (which I might very well abandon in that case, out of disillusionment). I care strongly about civil liberties, and can't stand to think that someone is being unjustly accused, and then unjustly punished, for something they didn't do.

Click to expand...

A very good book could come out of analyzing why you felt he was innocent and citing the multiple past examples of people being wrongly convicted and then realizing you were wrong in this case.

There is a guy who was convicted of raping and murdering his SIL and he claimed he was innocent. A church took up his case but he died before the DNA evidence was returned. The DNA evidence proved he did it. The leader of the group was disappointed and said that he had really believed him.

Injustice happens every day in our world but very few people tell the truth and so the hunt for facts can be infuriating at times. You wouldn't be the first person to believe someone is innocent in spite of what most people believe the evidence suggests. There are at least 12 in LA I can think of.

selena said:

snipped-

In an anecdote that illustrated the insular world of Aruba, Justice Minister Croes said Paul van der Sloot had recently visited him in his office after failing to become a judge, apparently seeking a position in Croes' department. Van der Sloot had also taught the justice minister's daughter.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160699,00.html

Click to expand...

Aha! Appears that he never did become a judge! Thank you for posting this link Selena:thumb:

suzihawk said:

Expert: Van der Sloot's Legal Strategies Are Baffling

Accused murderer Joran van der Sloot's legal strategy is doomed to failure and an appeal of his reported confession won't succeed, an international defense expert says.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...sloots-legal-strategies-are-baffling/19533765

Click to expand...

i agree - but the really pathetic thing is that his "strategies" today are no different than they were five years ago in aruba, EXCEPT he doesnt have his father playing the role of a peruvian judge... if aruba worried about looking bad five years ago then i hope they are ready for this circus that is about to begin. and i sure hope they dont think jvds is going to be loyal to them by keeping any secrets...im sure they are next on his list of things to sell...