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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donk
A donk is short for donkey, an inexperienced player who often plays very loosely and passively. Donks are also known as newbies and fish.

Donkament
A donkament is a poker tournament in which many of the players involved are inexperienced, or donkeys.

Donkey
A donkey is an unskilled player, or fish, who often plays extremely poorly, loosely, or passively. A donkament is a tournament full of donkeys.

I don't know how the alligators showed up, seems my mouse is dragging !

From this I get this......LOL

JVDS was imo a Donkey ....
SF was a better skilled poker player.....(no name for that)

Looks like the Donkey was headed to the Donkament.....but never made it.
He is a DOPEY Donkey................LOL

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Post no look BB
close as I can come to a definition.

In flop games and draw games, blinds must be posted in turn, rather than every hand, as is the case with antes in stud. New players are also sometimes required to post in order to join the action. Players should automatically post their blinds when it is their turn. If they do not post on time the dealer will ask them to, probably by saying “blinds up, please.” If the player still refuses to post their blind, they will be given a missed blind button and will be dealt out. If a player receives one or more missed blind buttons, they must post their blinds before they can be dealt in again. Usually, the player will have the option to either post immediately before the start of the next hand, or to wait, and post their blinds in turn. If a player refuses to take his blinds for a long enough period of time, his chips may be picked up by the floor person, and he may be replaced by another player.

A player is required to make up all missed blinds before he can be dealt in. This usually means that if he wants to be dealt in immediately, he would have to post both a big blind and a small blind, regardless of how poor his position is. On the other hand, if he chose to wait until it was his big blind, he would be allowed to take it in turn without having to make up the small blind. This is an attractive option to those players who do not want to pay more in blinds than they absolutely have to, and do not want to give late position players preflop postion on their postings. Other players may not recognize or care about subtle differences in posting strategy. They usually want to get back in action right away after missing blinds, and prefer to post immediately.
 
From this I get this......LOL

JVDS was imo a Donkey ....
SF was a better skilled poker player.....(no name for that)

Looks like the Donkey was headed to the Donkament.....but never made it.
He is a DOPEY Donkey................LOL

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Law of the Donkey was quoted quite a bit in the threads...
 
Here's the casino video:

http://www.larepublica.pe/node/271311/01#fotos

I believe I was the first to mention that it appears she's passing him a chip. Some disagreed, but it still looks that way to me...especially in the overhead shots.

Thanks for moving the videos forward again! I'm going to say, IMO, no exchange during handshake. I'm referencing the first video, overhead footage, beginning right after she smooths her hair. @ about 1:24.

When I freeze at several points, he does open his right palm after the handshake - However, the chip could still be concealed in his lower palm. Can't detect a full open palm, too unclear.

However, second/s before her hand meets his, as she begins reaching her right hand out to him, her palm is open (nearly palm down, not cupped) on freeze. Nothing there.

Try as I might, I can't see a chip being passed. FWIW, which is about :twocents:.
 
Just a friendly word of caution...I don't believe we are allowed to post information from other forums on this website. I'm relatively new here, so maybe one of our veteran WS'ers can let us know for sure!

noted!
TIA
 
I think you can sort of paraphrase what it is on the other forum, or just a link to the other forum with the post number or something to guide a person there. Some forums cannot be linked to at all. And, if you do, the name of it will show up as ++++ asterisks.
 
"Of course, from the video we've seen, Joran looks guilty."
There's probably a very simple explanation for that.

"My suspicions were aroused immediately when I heard that a dead girl was found in Joran Van Der Sloot's room, on the exact five year anniversary of Natalee's disapperance."My suspicions were aroused when I read news reports that a dead girl was found in the hotel room of a person who was a suspect in a previous murder, and whom had been voluntarily on camera several times 'confessing' to her murder.

"Yes, I'm prejudiced here, just as most people who already thought Joran had escaped justice in the Holloway case are prejudiced, too."I am sure there other people here, like myself, who do not consider themselves to be 'prejudiced', and who weren't following the NH case that closely at the time, and weren't emotionally involved in a certain outcome because we weren't writing books that would depend on that outcome being proven.

"Miost posters here, and most people in general, are looking for things to justify their predisposed antipathy towards Joran, which was fed and fueled for five years by Nancy Grace, JVM, Geraldo, etc. "
It's never good to generalize, because it often makes you wrong. I do not watch NG, have no idea who JVM is, and do not watch Geraldo, because I think their shows are more about ratings and sensationalism than anything else. I do not have a 'predisposed' antipathy towards Joran- I have contempt for people who lie to authorities and the media, and who admit that they are compulsive liars. I also don't have a lot of respect for people who say the rude things he said about a dead girl and her mother. Doesn't prove guilt, but it also didn't endear him to me.

"He looked totally clean (and unmarked from the struggle Stephany put up against him) when he left."As would anyone who had taken a shower and changed their clothing. Not to mention, it's unlikely that anyone who suffered major head trauma within 30 minutes of entering the room (according to Joran) would have inflicted much physical damage to their attacker while they lie dying. The video clearly shows a change in clothing. That can't be explained away by some sneaky FBI informant slipping in and changing his clothes for him. Doesn't sound like a conspiracy that often when people change their clothes they do it after showering, so as not to put clean clothes on a dirty body, even if they haven't just killed someone.

" It's just that my thoughts and speculation run contrary to the majority of opinions here."Actually, I think it's more that your thoughts and speculations run contrary to the reported facts and evidence in the case. Which is certainly your perogative. I am actually a huge fan of conspiracy theory- I just like the theories to be based on reported facts and evidence, and to account for ALL of the reported facts and evidence in a logical, if uncommon, way.





Of course, from the video we've seen, Joran looks guilty. The problem is, we haven't seen video from before they came back together to his room (which would have shown someone else entering the room), and more importantly we haven't seen any video from the time after Joran left the hotel, which would have revealed if anyone else entered or left the room after that.

My suspicions were aroused immediately when I heard that a dead girl was found in Joran Van Der Sloot's room, on the exact five year anniversary of Natalee's disapperance. Yes, I'm prejudiced here, just as most people who already thought Joran had escaped justice in the Holloway case are prejudiced, too. I'm looking for loopholes in the Peru case, because I find the "coincidences" and ever changing "evidence" to be suspicious, and because I think Joran was unfairly hounded for Natalee's disappearance. Miost posters here, and most people in general, are looking for things to justify their predisposed antipathy towards Joran, which was fed and fueled for five years by Nancy Grace, JVM, Geraldo, etc.

As I noted, we don't know if the real killer(s) left the room after Joran or not. The videotape would prove this one way or the other. You mention that the killers would have been covered with blood- that's exactly the point I made about Joran. Where was the blood on him? He looked totally clean (and unmarked from the struggle Stephany put up against him) when he left. And we do have video of this. We also don't have video of Joran stealing her money and her car. We have to take the Peruvian authorities' word for that, and frankly I think their reputation for integrity leaves a lot to be desired. Remember, it was also stated that Joran stole Stephany's jewelry, but we can see from the crime scene photos that she was still wearing an expensive watch and gold ring.

Again, all I'm doing is posting my thoughts, speculating, theorizing. The rest of you are doing the same thing. It's just that my thoughts and speculation run contrary to the majority of opinions here.
 
Get Smart.....I'm glad you got that off your chest.....LOL

Next someone here will be saying that Stephany's father is Head of the FBI in Peru and Chile.....in fact all of South America....

What I remember from it.....when his now attorney had "quit" there was speculation that the new attorney was Cesar Nagasaki (sp) or something like that. Anyway, this was the attorney for Fujimori, his other cellmate at CC. The article I read said that SF's father was a friend/confidante of Fuji or one of his friends. I don't remember where in the world this article is from, but it sure would have been ironic and karma laden if this would have happened.
 
'Bum' throwing....

SANDER GOTTENBOS - WITNESS STATEMENT - 06/16/05
On your question if I was with Joran in the carnivals season when there was an incident, I will explain to you the following: Yes I was with him on that day. On that day there was a parade in Oranjestad. We stood on the bridge at the Wilhelmina Park. That moment a druggie came to us. Joran had given him . The druggie had thrown it on the ground and started annoying us. Joran had called the police force that stood near. The police force had removed the druggie. After a while the druggie returned and started annoying us. He had grabbed Satish at its hand and wanted with him fight. At that moment Joran grabbed him and threw him off the bridge into the water.

POLICE STATEMENT....NOT ANONYMOUS.
 
"Of course, from the video we've seen, Joran looks guilty."
There's probably a very simple explanation for that.

"My suspicions were aroused immediately when I heard that a dead girl was found in Joran Van Der Sloot's room, on the exact five year anniversary of Natalee's disapperance."My suspicions were aroused when I read news reports that a dead girl was found in the hotel room of a person who was a suspect in a previous murder, and whom had been voluntarily on camera several times 'confessing' to her murder.

"Yes, I'm prejudiced here, just as most people who already thought Joran had escaped justice in the Holloway case are prejudiced, too."I am sure there other people here, like myself, who do not consider themselves to be 'prejudiced', and who weren't following the NH case that closely at the time, and weren't emotionally involved in a certain outcome because we weren't writing books that would depend on that outcome being proven.

"Miost posters here, and most people in general, are looking for things to justify their predisposed antipathy towards Joran, which was fed and fueled for five years by Nancy Grace, JVM, Geraldo, etc. "
It's never good to generalize, because it often makes you wrong. I do not watch NG, have no idea who JVM is, and do not watch Geraldo, because I think their shows are more about ratings and sensationalism than anything else. I do not have a 'predisposed' antipathy towards Joran- I have contempt for people who lie to authorities and the media, and who admit that they are compulsive liars. I also don't have a lot of respect for people who say the rude things he said about a dead girl and her mother. Doesn't prove guilt, but it also didn't endear him to me.

"He looked totally clean (and unmarked from the struggle Stephany put up against him) when he left."As would anyone who had taken a shower and changed their clothing. Not to mention, it's unlikely that anyone who suffered major head trauma within 30 minutes of entering the room (according to Joran) would have inflicted much physical damage to their attacker while they lie dying. The video clearly shows a change in clothing. That can't be explained away by some sneaky FBI informant slipping in and changing his clothes for him. Doesn't sound like a conspiracy that often when people change their clothes they do it after showering, so as not to put clean clothes on a dirty body, even if they haven't just killed someone.

" It's just that my thoughts and speculation run contrary to the majority of opinions here."Actually, I think it's more that your thoughts and speculations run contrary to the reported facts and evidence in the case. Which is certainly your perogative. I am actually a huge fan of conspiracy theory- I just like the theories to be based on reported facts and evidence, and to account for ALL of the reported facts and evidence in a logical, if uncommon, way.

I'll correct just one of the inaccuracies here. First, Joran never confessed to killing Natalee, on tape or otherwise. He was paid money and told of her dying accidentally on the beach and then getting rid of her body. He told other conflicting stories, always for money.

Fine, you're not prejudiced. You must be a real rarity among human beings.

I would also like to generally object to the mention of my book on the Holloway case. I simply can't win at this game- I was originally criticized for ever mentioning it, with the claim being I was trying to capitalize and sell books. Now, when I am trying to avoid mentioning it, posters keep bringing it up, in a mocking and mean-spirited way.

I've been accused of not being knowledgable about this subject, of not conducting any research, of asking others to do my work for me, of trying to promote my book, and bashing Beth, among other things. Has any other poster on this forum been dealt with in this manner? I have been nothing but polite with any of you.

At this point, I should ask myself why I'm posting here.
 
Any link to the reports? I recall reading that in the news quite a while ago- the implication was that the reason many of the local boys (including Joran) hung around where they did was because there were tourist girls there- and the local girls would have nothing to do with them because of the alleged assaults. Please provide links to those reports if you can find them. TIA.

I read through all the police reports from the NH case and there were examples of Joran and his friends being questioned about incidents of gang rapes, although the guys denied that the police were pretty specific - girls names included etc. These sounded like local girls to me, because some of the incidents occurred in the girls' cars etc. Sounds to me like they could have prosecuted him for SOMETHING.

Anyway at the risk of getting off track here.....but it does add up to a long history of this kind of behaviour. There must be other girls out there...
 
'Bum' throwing....

SANDER GOTTENBOS - WITNESS STATEMENT - 06/16/05
On your question if I was with Joran in the carnivals season when there was an incident, I will explain to you the following: Yes I was with him on that day. On that day there was a parade in Oranjestad. We stood on the bridge at the Wilhelmina Park. That moment a druggie came to us. Joran had given him . The druggie had thrown it on the ground and started annoying us. Joran had called the police force that stood near. The police force had removed the druggie. After a while the druggie returned and started annoying us. He had grabbed Satish at its hand and wanted with him fight. At that moment Joran grabbed him and threw him off the bridge into the water.

POLICE STATEMENT....NOT ANONYMOUS.

Thanks. However, if this account is true, then Joran actually seems like something of a hero here. He is pictured as defending himself and his friend, who was physically attacked by this guy. Not saying I believe it at all, but the statement does not portray Joran as a mad, future serial killer with anger management issues. Also, the statement doesn't seem to indicate that the guy was killed by this- on the contrary, one could easily assume that the bridge wasn't that high, and the bum was unharmed by the water.
 
I'll correct just one of the inaccuracies here. First, Joran never confessed to killing Natalee, on tape or otherwise. He was paid money and told of her dying accidentally on the beach and then getting rid of her body. He told other conflicting stories, always for money.

Please feel free to correct more than just ONE of the inaccuracies I have supposedly posted. I'll agree he didn't actually say he 'killed' her each time, though I do recall one time he claimed she hit her head and he left her to die. Semantics, I suppose. I generally tend to be more suspicious of people who claim they disposed of dead girls bodies than people who claim they didn't.

Fine, you're not prejudiced. You must be a real rarity among human beings.
I seriously doubt I'm a rarity at all, but thanks!

I would also like to generally object to the mention of my book on the Holloway case. I simply can't win at this game- I was originally criticized for ever mentioning it, with the claim being I was trying to capitalize and sell books. Now, when I am trying to avoid mentioning it, posters keep bringing it up, in a mocking and mean-spirited way.
I did not mention your book. I do not even know who you are, or the title of your book, if any, and certainly have not read it, if there is one. But that's not personal- I haven't read any books about the NH case. I said that "I" was not writing a book, and therefore have no reason to promote a sensational theory that is not backed by fact. I will agree I don't think it's appropriate to mention writing or researching for a book on WS, but that's my opinion.

I've been accused of not being knowledgable about this subject, of not conducting any research, of asking others to do my work for me, of trying to promote my book, and bashing Beth, among other things. Has any other poster on this forum been dealt with in this manner? I have been nothing but polite with any of you.
I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about me- since I've never mentioned any of that, but since you bring it up, I do recall more than a few times I've read comments about Beth that I felt were low and defamitory. That's just my opinion as well.

At this point, I should ask myself why I'm posting here.
Probably because you have a different take on the crimes, and you want other people to read your opinion about that. The fact that other people don't agree with your opinion really shouldn't be taken as a personal insult- I haven't read anyone's posts where it appeared they were out of line- it just looks like they disagree.
____________
 
Oh for the love of pete! enough with the personal attacks. quit talking about each other and get back to the discussion. if you disagree with a theory or post, post why in a generally civil way or just ignore it.
I am reviewing now for inappropriate posts. if it hasn't already be done for you I suggest self editing and it would be good if you beat me to it.
 
Another way to look at it is that Joran could easily have called the same police back to deal with the situation. One can try to imagine it was a savage attack by the 'bum', or one can focus on the fact that the word 'annoyed' was used several times. Being annoyed by someone isn't really a good excuse for physically accosting them.

Tossing someone off a bridge for annoying isn't usually what people would call hero behaviour. Hardly matters if the person was killed or not. It's hard to imagine, seeing how physically large Joran is, that a bum was doing much more than was admitted- annoying him.

Doesn't really matter much, in my opinion. Makes him look like a jerk, but has nothing to do with evidence in this case. Unless it can be used as evidence in this case, it's just something interesting to talk about concerning Joran's character. And character, or lack thereof is not what he's going to be tried for.


Thanks. However, if this account is true, then Joran actually seems like something of a hero here. He is pictured as defending himself and his friend, who was physically attacked by this guy. Not saying I believe it at all, but the statement does not portray Joran as a mad, future serial killer with anger management issues. Also, the statement doesn't seem to indicate that the guy was killed by this- on the contrary, one could easily assume that the bridge wasn't that high, and the bum was unharmed by the water.
 
derogatory name variations is an auto 2 day TO. take a moment to edit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
2,702
Total visitors
2,944

Forum statistics

Threads
595,704
Messages
18,031,483
Members
229,752
Latest member
HelenFlower1
Back
Top