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

[jilly]

Good to see he's still able to support his team while in Castro Castro.

http://translate.google.com/transla...06416/joran-le-hara-barra-holanda&sl=es&tl=en

lol - that was a rough translation! So he's grown a beard and gained weight?

I have to say that I've been following the soccer and because I knew that he would be watching, I've almost hoped (I said almost!)that the Netherlands would lose....I just can't stand to think about him yucking it up!:furious:

 

[butterfly7]

lol - that was a rough translation! So he's grown a beard and gained weight?

I have to say that I've been following the soccer and because I knew that he would be watching, I've almost hoped (I said almost!)that the Netherlands would lose....I just can't stand to think about him yucking it up!:furious:

This is JUST DISGUSTING!!!!!!! In Peru, I believe it was said that you're guilty until proven innocent and, again, there are a lot of prisoners there who have done far less, and are still waiting for their trials, and wouldn't it be nice that they could watch TV and cheer on their team!!!
I'm here in tears thinking poor SF would probably have liked to watch her favorite team as well!!! Forget the $$$ and let him experience reality!!!

 

[Dion]

lol - that was a rough translation! So he's grown a beard and gained weight?

I have to say that I've been following the soccer and because I knew that he would be watching, I've almost hoped (I said almost!)that the Netherlands would lose....I just can't stand to think about him yucking it up!:furious:

Never mind - where really counts, the final score will be Peru 1 / Netherlands 0

 

[Whome?]

Never mind - where really counts, the final score will be Peru 1 / Netherlands 0

:clap::clap:raying::Justice:

 

[Nova]

IMHO,If you can't afford to pay for
high price atty's,then don't do the
crime. There are thousands of people
in the court system today,who do not
have the benefit of "selling their story,
or making TV deals". The playing field
should be the same for all defendants.

As far as monies spent by the prosecution
I believe in a court of law,the burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove it's
case,hence the need for more money.

I don't want to see any one accused of
a heinous crime, to have the ability
to sell stories,to pay for their defense
I don't think it's right.

Did the perpetrator worry about the
victim's rights when committing the
crime,what about THEM they did not
ask to be killed etc. Sorry to rant
but I have no sympathy for the likes
of the Jorans or Casey's of the world.

JMHO :sick::sick::snooty:

I appreciate your feelings, but legally, JVDS has committed no crime. He has merely been accused of committing a crime. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt he is guilty, but if the law were based on what bystanders are "sure" they know, we'd still be drowning witches.

Yes, the prosecution has a higher burden in a criminal case. But except in the case of very, very wealthy defendants, the government also has an almost overwhelming advantage in money and other resources.

Conviction rates in the U.S. are higher than 90%. It's only in the movies where violent criminals regularly get off on technicalities or lawyer tricks.

So I'm still missing the logic (not to mention constitutionality) of denying funds to a defendant who--legally--has not been proven to have committed a crime.

 

[panthera]

(snipped for space)

"Foreign lawyers , if not registered in the Bar Association of Peru , can not practice in our country , much less assume the defense of a detainee ........ come on visits, but are not entitled to confer with his client at any time , as does a registered lawyer."

http://translate.google.com/transla...bogados-extranjeros-joran-llegan-este-viernes

Could be why Tacopina is assisting from afar??!!?? :waitasec: MOO

Thank you so much for this information ~ it does answer my earlier questons!!

 

[Sanny]

Joran seems to have adjusted nicely to CC.....watching sports while wearing his fav
team shirt while others in GP are patiently awaiting his arrival through 'their gates'.
He now seems to be sporting a beard...I guess he wants to blend in....lol

I bet he smells to high heaven.....yucky.......once a week shower for 15 minutes if he's lucky...but since they all stink...he's now one of them.

Gained a few from all that arroz con pollo they've been dishing up......yuck again...prepared by inmates with dirty hands......double yuck.

 

[TallCoolOne]

No need to apologize. I thought you were perfectly clear.

My point was just that until there is a conviction, we don't have a "criminal" who can be barred from profiting from his crime.

I don't want JVDS profiting from murder. On the other hand, a high profile case costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to defend. Where else does a defendant get that kind of money if not from the media?

Not wanting this to sound snarky, but WTF, if they can't afford the cost of a high profile attorney, maybe they should reconsider doing the crime then? I mean, boo hoo, they don't have a million to hire the best lawyer to get them off, golly gee, don't I feel sorry for them.......... Too freakin' bad.

 

[TallCoolOne]

IMHO,If you can't afford to pay for
high price atty's,then don't do the
crime. There are thousands of people
in the court system today,who do not
have the benefit of "selling their story,
or making TV deals". The playing field
should be the same for all defendants.

As far as monies spent by the prosecution
I believe in a court of law,the burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove it's
case,hence the need for more money.

I don't want to see any one accused of
a heinous crime, to have the ability
to sell stories,to pay for their defense
I don't think it's right.

Did the perpetrator worry about the
victim's rights when committing the
crime,what about THEM they did not
ask to be killed etc. Sorry to rant
but I have no sympathy for the likes
of the Jorans or Casey's of the world.

JMHO :sick::sick::snooty:

Yeah man, what you said!!

 

[Whome?]

:

I appreciate your feelings, but legally, JVDS has committed no crime. He has merely been accused of committing a crime. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt he is guilty, but if the law were based on what bystanders are "sure" they know, we'd still be drowning witches.

Yes, the prosecution has a higher burden in a criminal case. But except in the case of very, very wealthy defendants, the government also has an almost overwhelming advantage in money and other resources.

Conviction rates in the U.S. are higher than 90%. It's only in the movies where violent criminals regularly get off on technicalities or lawyer tricks.

So I'm still missing the logic (not to mention constitutionality) of denying funds to a defendant who--legally--has not been proven to have committed a crime.

Tyvm for responding.ITA that a person
ACCUSED of a crime should be afforded a
defense. In all the cases I have seen the
state does provide the accused a defense
if they cannot afford one.

My problem is in these high profile cases
the ACCUSED sell their story to gain an
advantage. Without their story they could
not afford the atty's,experts etc they now want.

For instance,in the OJ trial, he did not ask the
state for monies,did not have to sell any stories
etc to fund his defense.


In the case of Joran,Casey, they are selling
stories about victims to get money to defend
themselves. This is the part I hate.


Joran is not now/nor has he ever been in
the position to financially fund a million dollar
defense. Without the NH story and now this
story in Peru he would be like any other
inmate in Castro/Castro

JMHO


:twocents:

 

[jilly]

Never mind - where really counts, the final score will be Peru 1 / Netherlands 0

Very Good! I like that!!:dance:

 

[Chanler]

A point and then a question:

1. Tarcopino's office has apparently denied that he has any connection with Joran's Peruvian case.

2. Now the question: Has anyone discussed the merits or lack thereof of Joran's suit about improper representation?

 

[Whome?]

I'm not crazy about the idea myself, and I'll be happy to boycott any publication or broadcast that meets his asking price.

But the question remains: how do you stop someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime from entering into a legal contract?

Moreover, I can't speak for Peru, but it's often been said that in the U.S. (where JVDS is also under indictment) one gets precisely the amount of justice one can afford. Is the privilege to be afforded only to those who are already wealthy at the time of their arrest?

To answer your last question,the
answer is a resounding YES. If your
means of getting this "justice" is at
the expense of "YOUR VICTIM"

IMHO :snooty:

 

[suzihawk]

I appreciate your feelings, but legally, JVDS has committed no crime. He has merely been accused of committing a crime. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt he is guilty, but if the law were based on what bystanders are "sure" they know, we'd still be drowning witches.

Yes, the prosecution has a higher burden in a criminal case. But except in the case of very, very wealthy defendants, the government also has an almost overwhelming advantage in money and other resources.

Conviction rates in the U.S. are higher than 90%. It's only in the movies where violent criminals regularly get off on technicalities or lawyer tricks.

So I'm still missing the logic (not to mention constitutionality) of denying funds to a defendant who--legally--has not been proven to have committed a crime.

No one is denying him funds for his defense. No one is taking money out of his (or his mother's) pocket and saying they can't use it for his defense that I'm aware of.

By this logic, if a defendant is denied the right to 'earn' his defense funds, his constitutional rights are being denied? The very fact that they're in jail and not free to earn an income however they're able (legally or illegally) would then be unconstitutional?

Because his crime is especially heinous or notorious, he should be afforded an advantage over those that don't have the ability to market their sick, sensational stories in order to raise defense funds for the very crime they're accused of?

It's a bit of a stretch to say that no crime has been commited because he hasn't been convicted - yet, IMO. Even if, for some reason, he's acquited of this crime, it certainly doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

[hollyblue]

Joran seems to have adjusted nicely to CC.....watching sports while wearing his fav
team shirt while others in GP are patiently awaiting his arrival through 'their gates'.
He now seems to be sporting a beard...I guess he wants to blend in....lol

I bet he smells to high heaven.....yucky.......once a week shower for 15 minutes if he's lucky...but since they all stink...he's now one of them.

Gained a few from all that arroz con pollo they've been dishing up......yuck again...prepared by inmates with dirty hands......double yuck.

I'm sure he's not gaining weight on just the prison food. Remember he has a "mystery lady" coming in to pay visits. Prolly brings him PLENTY of goodies to chow down on. Even enought for poker friend and little buddy Mr. Rat. And the beard...Mr. Rat needs a nice warm fuzzy place to sleep doesn't he?

 

[hollyblue]

No one is denying him funds for his defense. No one is taking money out of his (or his mother's) pocket and saying they can't use it for his defense that I'm aware of.

By this logic, if a defendant is denied the right to 'earn' his defense funds, his constitutional rights are being denied? The very fact that they're in jail and not free to earn an income however they're able (legally or illegally) would then be unconstitutional?

Because his crime is especially heinous or notorious, he should be afforded an advantage over those that don't have the ability to market their sick, sensational stories in order to raise defense funds for the very crime they're accused of?

It's a bit of a stretch to say that no crime has been commited because he hasn't been convicted - yet, IMO. Even if, for some reason, he's acquited of this crime, it certainly doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I think we have Aruba and several of their inhabitants and all the conniving that went on there to thank for the circus we now have.

I truly hope JVS gets a fair trial, but think to re-victimize the victims and their family is over the top to gain finances for their defense.

Why doesn't he just sell T-Shirts of himself or something---if someone would be willing to pay for them...and undoubtedly there would be many nutballs and young kids that would. Look at Manson.

Why do we rarely ever read of a convicted person being exonerated and then making mucho bucks for his story? Seems a little squirrely and back-a$$wards to me.

 

[LookingUp]

Just catching up on posts and haven't seen any discussion about the 2 taxi cab drivers slated to give the judge their statements this week. Does anyone have an update concerning their court appearances? TIA

 

[FLNY]

Just catching up on posts and haven't seen any discussion about the 2 taxi cab drivers slated to give the judge their statements this week. Does anyone have an update concerning their court appearances? TIA

Good question! After the two taxi drivers didn't appear on June 24, the third driver (or passenger as quoted in some reports) remained scheduled to appear on Fri., June 25. But I scoured all the online Peruvian, Dutch and American news reports that weekend and last week and never found any mention of his hearing.

The original two were rescheduled to appear on July 5 and 6. We'll just have to wait and see if there is any report on them this week!!

http://translate.googleusercontent....&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgezKs6E0WtQgTlLo3IdtuCblCGUQ

 

[asiabrasil]

Finally something from the casino......

Lima, Peru – Stephany Flores Ramirez went directly to the poker table where Joran van der Sloot was sitting, according to an Atlantic City Casino spokesman.

Luis Laos told In Session the 21-year-old woman entered the casino by herself around 3:00 a.m., approximately two hours after van der Sloot. Laos was able to trace Flores' path to the table by looking at a sequence of videos from several closed circuit cameras.

Peruvian police believe van der Sloot murdered Flores later that morning.
Neither Flores nor van der Sloot were registered for an international poker tournament scheduled to start on June 2.
Laos, the assistant general manager at the casino, said people who wanted to play in the tournament could enter by playing at the table or online. He said the entry fee was $2,700.
According to Laos, 700 to 800 people were registered for the tournament, which had a registration deadline of May 30.

Laos confirmed reports that Flores "won very little money" at the poker table on May 29. He said she won only 670 sols, about $237.

Laos said van der Sloot did not win any money that night.

Just days earlier, on May 25, Laos said Flores won $10,000. But he said, it was not at the poker table. The spokesman recalled Flores was with a "male friend" he would not identify in an area where there are only baccarat tables.

Laos said the "male friend" was not van der Sloot. Based on Laos' review of eight to 10 surveillance cameras, he said van der Sloot was not present when Flores won the $10,000. Van der Sloot had been seen in the casino about a week before Flores' death.

Laos said it is common for people to know who the big winners are, and that van der Sloot could have known that Flores had money.

"People talk. Someone who saw her win could have told him. She could have told him," he said.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010...hany-flores-won-237-the-night-she-was-killed/

 

[georger]

What has Joran done since this article on June 4 that would change Joe Tacopina's mind.

EXCLUSIVE: Murder Suspect Joran Van der Sloot "Has Gone Down A Very Disturbing Path" Says His Ex-Lawyer

<snip> “At this stage I wouldn’t agree to be his attorney because the Joran of today has gone down a very disturbing path in life,” he said.

“I met and knew Joran four and a half years ago and he was overwhelmed by the media. The kid I knew back then would not have committed an act of violence.


“The only reason I got involved in the case is because we did a two month investigation and believed he had no involvement in the murder or disappearance in Aruba.

“However his behavior over the last two and a half years has made me believe he is not the same person I knew."

same song, second verse. The third verse may be a dirge in a different key, the key of X-flat? :waitasec: