Natalee Holloway Remains Possibly Found

sorry but here in the USA its up to the prosecution to prove you are guilty! despite what others say! I believe Joran V beat that girl to death in Venezuela and the prisons are softer there I believe! no one knows how Natalie died except who killed her! and that SOB tried to extort money from Natalie's mom to tell her where her body is! damn living breathing human garbage period

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster
... regardless of his other crimes, has yet to be found guilty in court of Holloway's disappearance, and must therefore be considered innocent.

That only applies to a court of law and the legal and law enforcement fields.

We little individual citizens can assume what we want to.

Trust me, I'm the biggest advocate of innocent until proven guilty, but people can have individual opinions. I still think that OJ should have been criminally convicted, but he wasn't. Officially, he's not guilty. Privately, I think that he's guilty as sh*t and got away with it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Apologies if I come off a little strident. I tend to hold myself to a high standard on this one ( an adverse reaction to my family, who thinks courts are superfluous to a conviction...) and I sometimes forget than what i hold true for me isn't necessarily true for others. Again, mea culpa.

a reply to: DrunkenMimeMaster

And I'll apologize for beating this dead horse...apparently you got enough flak from others that I didn't need to jump in.

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster
Hmm. Strange, I was under the impression this happened in a little place called America, whose laws quite clearly state "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", not public opinion. ( emphasis mine.)

You know absolutely NOTHING about the Natalee Holloway case.



You would be wise to stop exhibiting your ignorance.

Des

a reply to: Destinyone

Curious...I was stating an opinion, having a civil conversation, admitting my mistakes, and suddenly I get called a Troll. Sorry, I usually [play Night Elves or Forsaken. Seriously, however, my main point, the one your ad hominem attack attempts to deflect from, is my belief that until he is convicted of Holloway's murder, he is, technically innocent of that crime. Why are you deflecting from this discussion?

a reply to: Destinyone

HA! If everybody stopped exhibiting their ignorance, over half of the posters on ATS would no longer post anything....meh, maybe that's a good thing.

The murderer was not American, and the crime was not done on American soil. Aruba is a territory of the Netherlands.

If it was the USA, he very well would be in prison because one doesn't always need a body to be convicted. The evidence, and his own words, are stacked against him.

PS.....the new idiot word for this month is "deflect". People use it erroneously but think it makes them seem smart. It doesn't.

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster
a reply to: Destinyone

Curious...I was stating an opinion, having a civil conversation, admitting my mistakes, and suddenly I get called a Troll. Sorry, I usually [play Night Elves or Forsaken. Seriously, however, my main point, the one your ad hominem attack attempts to deflect from, is my belief that until he is convicted of Holloway's murder, he is, technically innocent of that crime. Why are you deflecting from this discussion?

Because I was actually involved in the Holloway case and had a whole page in the Aruban newspaper published regarding this case.

Des

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster
a reply to: Destinyone

Curious...I was stating an opinion, having a civil conversation, admitting my mistakes, and suddenly I get called a Troll. Sorry, I usually [play Night Elves or Forsaken. Seriously, however, my main point, the one your ad hominem attack attempts to deflect from, is my belief that until he is convicted of Holloway's murder, he is, technically innocent of that crime. Why are you deflecting from this discussion?

Because I as actually involved in the Holloway case and had a whole page in the Aruban newspaper published regarding this case.

Des

Please do not take this as an accusation of deceit, for it isn't. But you provide a link? I am curious, and seek only to improve my knowledge and understanding.

a reply to: DrunkenMimeMaster

I don't think being called a troll is true ad hominem. You mad, bro?

Seriously, if you think he is innocent, then good for you. I personally feel that he is guilty, especially after his second murder in another country that went down about the same way.

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster
a reply to: Destinyone

Curious...I was stating an opinion, having a civil conversation, admitting my mistakes, and suddenly I get called a Troll. Sorry, I usually [play Night Elves or Forsaken. Seriously, however, my main point, the one your ad hominem attack attempts to deflect from, is my belief that until he is convicted of Holloway's murder, he is, technically innocent of that crime. Why are you deflecting from this discussion?

Because I as actually involved in the Holloway case and had a whole page in the Aruban newspaper published regarding this case.

Des

Oh, Des. I am so sorry.

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
a reply to: DrunkenMimeMaster

I don't think being called a troll is true ad hominem. You mad, bro?

Seriously, if you think he is innocent, then good for you. I personally feel that he is guilty, especially after his second murder in another country that went down about the same way.

calling one a troll, no, especially had I been engaged in obviously trollish maneuvers. However, I had admitted my mistakes and explained my position. Followed by a meme and a Cease and Desist with an appeal to authority. If I'm wrong, i apologize....but being called something I'm not rankles. Apologies.

a reply to: Destinyone

I think you're misunderstanding his point.

We have two realities - one is real reality, the other is legal reality.
These two realities usually do not agree and often contradict.

In real reality if we have a video of some guy shooting another person in the face and it's clearly X, we will all say "omg X shot Y, it's clear as day, he's guilty!".

But that's not legal reality. In legal reality he is technically suppose to be considered innocent until a court convenes and the legal process ensues and then after trial if they are convicted than they are legally guilty of a crime.

A good example of this is the Vanderbilt rape case that happened over the last few years. There was video online showing clearly the perps and there was no doubt about who they were or what they did. But they were technically "innocent" of the crime until a lawful court had convicted them of it.

This is for various reasons, such as specific charges.
Like, "what specific charges and what degrees of those charges is the accused guilty of exactly", and "what sentence will they recieve for those crimes". These are questions only a lawful court can appropriately address.

This is why we still consider someone innocent even if we know they are guilty without a doubt. They might have been mischarged and the prosecutor charged them with too many things or failed to properly outline what crimes they ought to be charged with. This happens all the time. Courts are theoretically suppose to work all of these things out so that we arrive at the right destination.

What Drunken is referring to is the legal technical reality, and what you are referring to is real reality. Totally different language systems in totally different universes where the rules are not the same at all.

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
a reply to: DrunkenMimeMaster

I don't think being called a troll is true ad hominem. You mad, bro?

Seriously, if you think he is innocent, then good for you. I personally feel that he is guilty, especially after his second murder in another country that went down about the same way.

This is a situation where intellect vs emotions collide.
Calling anyone anything is ad hominem it means "at the person".

Drunken is not saying that Joran is actually in reality innocent.
He is trying to say that on a piece of legal paper he is until a court offically presents the conviction document.

Drunken probably personally agrees that (especially with Joran's confessions) he is almost certainly guilty in terms of physical reality. But we are suppose to believe in the legal system so he is espousing a higher ideal - Civil Rights.

And before anyone attacks that, if you are protecting the accused by demanding Civil Rights that does NOT mean you are further victimizing the victims of the alleged crimes. It means you are making absolute sure we get the right guy and bring him/her to justice properly - something we should all want, especially considering how many false convictions have happened over the last century.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Oh wow. You actually expressed that far better than I could ever do,. Thank you.

The f'er is in prison in Peru for a reason. Is it too much to ask that the people defending him to think about that reason before defending him? Any sympathy for Joran goes right out the window regardless of "American standards", because he's already been convicted of killing someone else. Let that sink in & spare me the feigned morality attention whoring. Depraved bastard is as depraved bastard does, thus a depraved bastard should be so blessed to choke on something less pleasant than vomit even if he didn't kill Natalee -- he still killed someone else and his place of residence will not change any time soon. Sympathizing with a convicted cold-blooded murderer is about as knuckle-dragger as you can get, and it shines a hell of a light on your own "morals".

Maybe this is a stupid ass question, but if the guy gave her the date rape drug (which makes him a sociopath, I do realize) and she passed out and started puking, why the hell didn't he flip her over and clear her airway?

I mean, unless his intent WAS to murder her.

I probably shouldn't try to figure out the mindset of a rapist... it's not helpful.

originally posted by: Nyiah
The f'er is in prison in Peru for a reason. Is it too much to ask that the people defending him to think about that reason before defending him? Any sympathy for Joran goes right out the window regardless of "American standards", because he's already been convicted of killing someone else. Let that sink in & spare me the feigned morality attention whoring. Depraved bastard is as depraved bastard does, thus a depraved bastard should be so blessed to choke on something less pleasant than vomit even if he didn't kill Natalee -- he still killed someone else and his place of residence will not change any time soon. Sympathizing with a convicted cold-blooded murderer is about as knuckle-dragger as you can get, and it shines a hell of a light on your own "morals".

Never said i was sympathizing with him, thank you. Merely that, even accused folks have rights. I will always stand for rights for all - even if I personally despise the person in question. Yes, he has been found guilty of other crimes. But if we remove the presumption of innocence for him, it begins a road that ends with 'oh well, X was accused of a crime, must be guilty." I just like a fair playing field, is all.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Maybe this is a stupid ass question, but if the guy gave her the date rape drug (which makes him a sociopath, I do realize) and she passed out and started puking, why the hell didn't he flip her over and clear her airway?

I mean, unless his intent WAS to murder her.

I probably shouldn't try to figure out the mindset of a rapist... it's not helpful.

Murders usually try and deflect blame. Like, yeah I hit my wife and she died, but it wasn't because I hit her, it was because she fell back and hit her head on a table. Or, yes I killed that man by stabbing him 47 times, but it was because he came at me with a knife. Then evidence shows the wife did not head her head on a table and die, but was deliberately beaten to death.

If this is in fact Natalee, the cause of death may not be determined at this late date. Regardless, it's just as likely she choked on her own vomit - which could happen if he drugged, raped, and left her alone - as it is he strangled or beat her to death and during the re-telling of the story, tried to deflect the blame by making it an accident. By telling it that way, sure he is a bad guy for drugging and raping a girl, but he is not as bad as a murderer.

originally posted by: DrunkenMimeMaster

originally posted by: Nyiah
The f'er is in prison in Peru for a reason. Is it too much to ask that the people defending him to think about that reason before defending him? Any sympathy for Joran goes right out the window regardless of "American standards", because he's already been convicted of killing someone else. Let that sink in & spare me the feigned morality attention whoring. Depraved bastard is as depraved bastard does, thus a depraved bastard should be so blessed to choke on something less pleasant than vomit even if he didn't kill Natalee -- he still killed someone else and his place of residence will not change any time soon. Sympathizing with a convicted cold-blooded murderer is about as knuckle-dragger as you can get, and it shines a hell of a light on your own "morals".

Never said i was sympathizing with him, thank you. Merely that, even accused folks have rights. I will always stand for rights for all - even if I personally despise the person in question. Yes, he has been found guilty of other crimes. But if we remove the presumption of innocence for him, it begins a road that ends with 'oh well, X was accused of a crime, must be guilty." I just like a fair playing field, is all.

Dude with respect, this thread is about Natalee, not you and your beliefs. You are really distracting the topic.