Is The Netherlands really an Appropriate Venue for the Natalee Holloway Case? A country that would Allow This Political Party?
As the family of Natalee Holloway waits for the NYC judges decision on their civil law suit against Joran and Paulas Van der Sloot we see some amazing, bizarre and rather eye-opening happenings taking place in the Netherlands. The Netherlands being one potential venue that the Van der Sloot’s attorney, Joe Tacopina, has stated should have jurisdiction.
On May 15, 2005 the judge hearing the civil case determined she would allow the case to to forward and take it “under advisement.”
A couple of the many issues that was put forth by the family as to why the venue should be in NYC rather than Aruba or The Netherlands was safety concerns, a majority of the witnesses were from the US (NYC area) and Aruba gains the greatest percentage of its tourism from New York state.
The majority of the American tourists come from this state (NY), about 17 percent of the total. In relation to 2003, 2004 had a growth of 13.47 percent, which dropped to 9.1 percent in the first quarter of 2005.
One could also consider whether the Holloway’s and Twitty’s could get a fair trial in Aruba or The Netherlands. We have already seen the Aruban investigation into Natalee’s disappearance botched (purposely or not) and performed in an unprofessional manner.
“Total madness”, according to a criminal law expert of the University of Leiden, Hans Nijboer. “This is a total error”.
Who is to say any court proceeding would be any different seeing that Paulas Van der Sloot had been part of the system and impartiality let alone conflicts of interest seem to be non-existent. The family and Natalee’s friends have stated that they fear going back to Aruba. Who wouldn’t? On the last night of a four day vacation they lose their best friend and then are blamed. The family and friends have actually been blamed for Natalee’s disappearance by an irresponsible Aruban media.
How many defense attorneys in the United States have tried and successfully asked for a change of venue for their clients and got just that. Maybe attorney Joe Tacopina should be asked that very question. Just how many times when it was convenient for your client did you request a change of venue and jurisdiction?
We have already seen what the Aruban courts are capable of. The closed door, secret star chamber is hardly the answer to bring justice to a civil case where that very issue of secrecy and with holding information has created more problems and potential conspiracies. The “good old boy” network of revolving Aruban judges, many of them potentially Paulas Van der Sloots peers hardly seems like a proper or just jurisdiction. It would be a kin to having the trial in Mountain Brook, AL. Think for one second Joe Tacopina would allow that? Does one even think that Tacopina would not fight for a jurisdiction change if the venue was Alabama or the other two states that joined the boycott?
That lead us to The Netherlands. Once again we have the issue of Paulas Van der Sloot and a “home field” advantage of potential cronyism . The mere appearance would scream foul. However, one would also wonder whether The Netherlands would be a proper venue taking into account the following article that makes one’s skin crawl and need to shower after reading. Is a country that would allow paedophiles to be a political party really the proper jurisdiction for a “sex crimes” and kidnapping case? It would hardly seem so.
Amsterdam – Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.
The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Website it would be officially registered on Wednesday, proclaiming: “We are going to shake The Hague awake!”
The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
“A ban just makes children curious,” Ad van den Berg, one of the party’s founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.
The question at hand in the civil law suit brought by the parents of Natalee Holloway is one of rape and kidnapping. Was Natalee Holloway able to consent to anything if she was intoxicated or drugged? Meanwhile in The Netherlands we have a “voting block” of individuals who are creating a political party that state consent to have sex should be lowered to 12 or abolished all together. This is just stunning and an inappropriate venue.
The Netherlands already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, but the NVD is unlikely to win much support, the AD quoted experts as saying.
The party said private possession of child pornography should be allowed although it favours banning the trade of such materials. The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.
A Country that is already so lenient on soft drugs, prostitution among other issues hardly seems like one that is even on the same page let alone the same planet to be a jurisdiction for this case. The attitudes, policies and culture seem to prejudice Natalee’s family. Why should that be allowed to occur? The answer is, it should not.
Is traveling to New York City really a burden for the defense? The Van der Sloot’s had no problem coming there to do an interview when it behooved them. I am sure they could find another MSM outlet to foot their bill if they promise them an exclusive interview. The cheapest and most direct flights are from Aruba in Kennedy Airport. Just a stones throw from the court house. Or the Van der Sloot’s and necessary witnesses could fly to Newark International Airport and take a nice scenic drive across the George Washington Bridge and see the NYC skyline.
The fact of the matter is that thousands of New Yorkers purchase plane and cruise ship tickets to Aruba every year, more than any other state in the US. The state of NY and NYC makes money off the taxes on those tickets. The NYC tourists in turn travel to Aruba and spend their tourist dollars in Aruba. I would tend to think that Joe Tacopina if given an option of NYC, Alabama or Mississippi would chose NYC as a jurisdiction to hear this case. (Hint to the MSM): Maybe that question needs to be posed to Joe?
It is clear that Aruba and The Netherlands are not a proper venue for jurisdiction as they prejudice Natalee Holloway and her family. It is also probably true that Alabama and Mississippi may be prejudicial to the Van der Sloots. What better jurisdiction then than NYC? An impartial and fabulous court system that could withstand the scrutiny and media frenzy of this civil case.
In reality it would seem like NYC would be the perfect jurisdiction for such a case. I am sure that Joe Tacopina would admit it was one of the best courts in the US. I think he would also agree, making an honest accessment, that due to the media exposure of this case that an impartial jurisdiction is necessary.
For that reason, as there appears to be no jurisdiction available where either party could get a fair trail without prejudice, let the trial take place in NYC. After all, what does Joran and Paulas have to hide if they are innocent? If they are truly innocent, stop hiding behind technicalities and a home grown investigation. No one in the US is ever going to believe they are innocent unless they face a judicial proceeding.
It might as well take place in the “City that never Sleeps” as NYC is probably the only jurisdiction that is capable of handling a case of such magnitude.