Joran Van der Sloot/Peter R. De Vries Tapes: Why Some Pundits in the Natalee Holloway Case Should be Seen and Not Heard
Spare us the spin that Joran Van der Sloot made a “false confession”. Joran’s attorney Joe Tacopina floated that concept early after the Peter De Vries tapes were released and it was shot down immediately. Tacopina referenced the concept that “false confession” exists and then in the next breathe said, but not in this case. However, it would appear that his fellow partners in crime, defense attorney, have followed his lead.
Here is a helpful hint to pundits who discuss the Natalee Holloway case … know the topic that you are pretending to be an expert on. This message especially goes on to Defense attorney Ann Bremner from the Nancy Grace show.
There is nothing more pathetic than to hear an attorney on a cable show pretend to know what they are talking about just because they are an attorney. There is also nothing more hideous than defense attorney forwarding an agenda of one of their own. The comments seem to be even worse when one listens to a defense attorney ramble with some on the most ridiculous excuses for suspects. In this case its using the theory of “false confession”.
How could anyone compare two cases that were more different in how the suspects handled themselves with regards to confessing to a crime?
(Go to minute 5:25 to hear the comments in question)
GRACE: OK. Out to the lawyers, Randi Karmel, Richard Herman, Ann Bremner.
Ann Bremner, you`ve got a guy that says I hope you don`t find her body because my semen will be in, on, and about the body. You`ve got him describing her underwear and he`s accurate according to her mother. This is not just caressing on the beach. Now he says she died of a convulsion and he disposed of her body?
ANN BREMNER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, either this is another iteration of statements he`s given before, which there have been scores of different statements, or in terms of the confession and proving this case, remember John Mark Carr. I killed JonBenet, coming home with the shrimp and a champagne. And, in fact, he didn`t. They tried every which way to show that he did it, but in this case, there is corpus delecti, no evidence.
GRACE: But the big difference – Ann, Ann, I appreciate that. Thank you.
GRACE: Randi Karmel, the difference is that Joran Van der Sloot was seen by witnesses with her the last known person to be with her when she was alive. He confesses that he had sex with her. I can`t imagine that that was voluntary. And then disposes of his – of the body. Now, if it had been an innocent death, an accidental death, why not call 911, Randy?
Actually, the difference is that not only was Joran Van der Sloot one of the last known people ever to be seen with Natalee Holloway before she disappeared forever. Joran Van der Sloot had denied any involvement in Natalee’s disappearance or death from the outset. Joran has never admitted in an interview or in statements to police that he had involvement in the crime. (That is statements that we know of unless any were destroyed from 5/30/05). Until the Peter R. De Vries tape was released, Joran had denied all. Now, when he thought there was no camera or public audience … he made the admission and confession.
Let’s compare that to the situation with John Mark Karr’s “false confession as defense attorney and so called pundit Anne Bremner wants to do. From the outset John Mark Karr stated that he had involvement in the crime against Jon Benet Ramsey. Karr never said he did not do it, then he did, then he didn’t. He admitted that he killed Jon Benet and stuck to the story. Even after it was determined through DNA that John Mark Karr had no involvement in the Jon Benet murder case, he still insisted he did. John Mark Karr wanted to be found guilty.
The two cases have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to the “false confession” defense. To say that “false confession” is what Joran Van der Sloot did is just plain lazy punditry. Joran Van der Sloot has denied all involvement from day one and has lied along the way in his denials. Maybe it’s time that cable shows get pundits on that know the subject matter and are familiar with the cases, rather than the only criteria being that they are a lawyer.