Jump to content

Talk:Joran van der Sloot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArielGold (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 23 July 2007 (Reverted 3 edits by 4.253.44.169 identified as vandalism to last revision by John254. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV

ANybody know whether or not there was an actual confession, the article looks damned unprofessional citing blogs Sherurcij 02:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have marked this article with the NPOV tag. I hope this can be cleared up fairly quickly. --Yamla 21:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page doesn't say there is a confession. The page says that Beth Twitty says there is one. We even link to a video that proves she did say that. The heading even says "Alleged". What more do you want? AlistairMcMillan 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I initially raised the complaint, the article read as follows

According to Beth Holloway Twitty, in a September 10,2005 interview in the Aruban newspaper Bon Dia, the police reports indicated that Joran admitted to having had sexual relations with Natalee while she was going in and out of consciousness. “This is rape”, Mrs. Twitty said.[1] --- Joran's Rape Confession

According to Beth Holloway Twitty, in a September 10,2005 interview in the Aruban newspaper Bon Dia, the police reports indicated that Joran admitted to having had sexual relations with Natalee while she was going in and out of consciousness. “This is rape”, Mrs. Twitty said.[2]

In a September 11, 2005 interview with [Fox News], Mrs. Twitty repeated her contention that Joran had sex with an unconscious Natalee at the van der Sloot home. [3] Popular blog Hyscience and Mykemyk both noted, "The most alarming news of all came when Beth announced that she held in her possession a statement from Joran van der Sloot saying that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with Natalee Holloway as she drifted in and out of consciousness. Natalee's mother said she had not spoken publicly about the statement for fear of compromising the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of her daughter."

However, Aruba and the Netherlands have a lenient approach towards sexual activities [4] and gang rape by teenaged males. [5]

Hopefully we can all agree that was horribly POV, redundant and apparently claiming gangrape as a Dutch national sport :P Sherurcij 00:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the supposed response by Beth Twitty since the link provided went to an AP story, not an interview with the Guardian, and did not contain the quotation attributed to her.

Admission versus Confession

I changed the header to Admission for the following reasons. In U.S. practice, an party admission is a statement by a party, not a full confession, that admits facts adverse to the party. Here, the following facts are admissions against interest by Joran -- 1. the statement that he lied to the police, 2. the statement that the girl was drunk, 3. Beth's version of that statement - that the girl was going in and out of consciousness, 4. that Joran, and according to Beth, te Kalpoe brothers, all had sex with the girl. These statements may not be a confession to murder, but they may be a confession to rape, and they clearly are admissions.

Good call, just a minor note of support Sherurcij 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the external links, but kept most of the blogs. These blogs are noteworthy because they link to television video from MSM, contain photos and references to print stories. But they do express opinions.

If someone wants to research this case, this groups of blogs is a great place to start. And it is easier to find the news articles thru the blogs. Also the bloggers in one case flew to Aruba and conducted interviews. Several of the bloggers have appeared on cable television, so where do we draw the line between a print journalist who did not go to Aruba, and a blogger with some skills?

I also added the AP story.

If these blogger have actually contributed some new information then please add that information to the page and cite them as a source. I realise that external links don't have to follow our NPOV goals but the linked weblogs are heavily biased and therefore don't make good sources of information on the subject. AlistairMcMillan 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this wikipedia page does not glorify this acne covered weak kid from Aruba, as the Twitty family has been through enough with the botched investigation and no one held accountable.

On the external links, someone insists on having the link to the Good Morning America story go through the JVDS blog. The GMA site is a primary source and though I'm sure the JVDS blog people want web hits, they should find another way.

I have switched the link to the court documents from JVDS to Findlaw as Findlaw has a more efficient interface.

Holloway a minor?

Patrick added the statement, "As the complaint points out, Natalee was a minor under Alabama law (she was 18, the age of majority is 19)". How is this relevant? Holloway wasn't in Alabama and van der Sloot has never, as far as I know, been there. --Yamla 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant for the content of the complaint (see the link for the content). I do not claim that the complaint is justified.--Patrick 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks to me like Twitty is going off the deep end again, but that's obviously just opinion. Thank you for clearing up why that was added to the page. It's relevant to the article even given my opinions of the complaint's legal merits. --Yamla 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually irrelvant for the complaint, because under that premise, I could prosecute someone somewhere in the world where the laws are fitting to my purpose. However, you can not assume that everybody in the world acts within all the potential laws of the whole world. The only law that is relevant is Aruban law in this case. There she was an adult. --KimvdLinde 16:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true (in my understanding of the legal system) but what Patrick added is relevant to the article because what he added is what Twitty is claiming. The article already notes the legal dubiousness of Twitty's claims. --Yamla 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it is better NPOV when both sides are pointed out, so I added the difference with Aruba. --KimvdLinde 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around with it a bit, to avoid whether Natalee was actually a minor. As an attorney, I can tell you that when the age of majority is older than 18, it is for very limited purposes, usually having to do with child support and the duty to support (New York is 21). For all intents and purposes having to do with self-determination, an 18 year old is an adult in every state. In addition, I've deleted the bit about sexual assault since the lawsuit is a bit unclear on that point. We don't have to insert the allegations. People know what Beth's claims are from the rest of the article and can read the lawsuit themselves if interested.Wehwalt 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info in external links is no reason to dispense with it in the article, especially if the external info is not copied but summarized, rearranged, etc. We do that all the time in Wikipedia.--Patrick 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Age of majority article says "In the United States ... currently 18 is the age of majority for most purposes, except in Alabama and Nebraska where it is 19, but see Legal drinking age. In some states, 21 is the legal age of majority for certain limited purposes, such as receiving title to property transferred by gift, will, or trust.", so it confirms that Alabama and Nebraska are exceptional cases, where an 18-year old is a minor. If you nevertheless think this is wrong, please update that article. (This is apart from the question whether it applies for acts outside Alabama.)--Patrick 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it is 19. However, they are curently canging that, just do not know how far they are at the moment. --KimvdLinde 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the relevance of Natalee's supposed minority is that it gives her parents standing to bring the suit. That has yet to be tested. Do we have to go further than that?Wehwalt 10:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose moving lawsuit to Natalee Holloway article

The whole issue of the lawsuit should probably be moved to the Natalee Holloway article. It involves more than just Joran, since his father is sued. I suggest moving it there, and perhaps just leave a sentence in Joran's article that he is a defendant in a suit filed by Beth and Dave. -Wehwalt 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah the whole article is kinda odd, it should be about joran, but is more about the lawsuit, his father and all kind of related things which perhaps could be better placed in other articles. Boneyard 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lawsuit is about alleged conduct of Joran, and of his father (but only to the extent of allowing Joran's conduct), so this article seems a suitable place.--Patrick 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where would the reasonable user seeking information from Wikipedia about the lawsuit go? -Wehwalt 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To either of the two articles. The lawsuit should at least be mentioned at Natalee's page, I just noticed that has not yet been done.--Patrick 12:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natalee's article is already large, we can also make the lawsuit a separate article.--Patrick 12:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no separate article for the OJ Simpson civil case. -Wehwalt 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That section OJ_Simpson#Civil_trial is smaller.--Patrick 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. But given the end of the lawsuit and the fact that there is little going on regarding Joran, I wonder if it is not time to merge this into the the Natalee Holloway article. Any thoughts? I won't make it a formal proposal yet.--Wehwalt 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion, again

With no response in three weeks to my proposal to delete or if keep, then merge, I do it formally. Really, there is little in this article which is not in the Holloway article, and we can move any text over. I propose to delete, or in the alternative, merge.--Wehwalt 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merging or deleting will not take up any less disk space on WP. this way the potential murderer gets more focus.<s? I for one think he is as guilty as sin All six foot five of him. Cheers Will314159 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of POV

I keep having to revert an editor who insists on putting in unverified information such as that Natalee and Joran had "sex without intercourse" and the like, plus POV statements out of place in this article, which I think we have done a good idea keeping neutral.

Incidently, if the two years passes and Joran is dismissed as a suspect, it will probably be time to merge the content of this article into Natalee's. It shouldn't take up much room; most of what is here is already there.--Wehwalt 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joran's father .. licence to practice law ..

I have never heard of such a thing in the Dutch legal system.. the whole section seems to be outdated/inacurate/uncited to me Dugodugo 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was reporting about a year ago about him being sworn in to qualify to practice law in Aruba. It is possible the terminology is wrong, and even a U.S. cite may still get it wrong.--Wehwalt 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joran_van_der_Sloot&oldid=146459264"