I don't understand. Can someone explain this to me?
The family of missing Alabama teen Natalee Holloway is at it again. They feel like they haven't really been moronic enough thus far by:
1) sending their immature daughter to Aruba by herself;
2) interfered and in whatever way possible just generally annoyed the investigators in Aruba;
3) threatened to sue the island of Aruba, Yes that's right, not anyone in particular, but the entire island.
Natalee's mother, Elizabeth Ann Twitty (whose name is kinda funny in its own right), has gone all Hollywood and is pissed of they haven't had any press in weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if she hired an agent to represent her. I am not trying to be insensitive, but they need to understand that the girl is just gone. They probably aren't going to find her and they definitely aren't going to find out what happened that night. So all this is simply posturing.
More importantly, why do you keep looking at everyone else to blame, Ms. Twitty? You have blamed the Aruban investigators, the guys Natalee was hanging out with, the U.S. government for not doing enough, the whole island of Aruba, etc...
Maybe for a second you should look at it from a different perspective. I know it's a lot easier to blame someone else, but maybe you shouldn't have sent your 18 year old daughter from Alabama to Aruba to party like a rockstar. Maybe she should have been more responsible about hanging out with a friend instead of random people she had never met. And finally, maybe she should have had more awareness and not decided it was a good idea to go get gang banged by three dudes she just met, on an island she had never been to.
Basically, Twitty has showed about as much intelligence since Natalee disappeared as she or her daughter did before.
But all that is simply background to the latest development, of which I am asking for clarification.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/17/holloway.suit/index.html
The Holloways have sued Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch national and one of the teens they allege was involved. And they filed the law suit in New York.
So basically, the mother of the girl from Alabama, who disappeared in Aruba, is suing the Dutch guy she says was involved, and is doing it in New York. This sounds like that episode of Star Trek when the Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans are all trying to claim the same planet and they don't know whose laws to follow.
The 16-page lawsuit makes its case with a mixture of fact and supposition. Here are a few of my favorites:
"This is a case about a high-school graduation trip to a tropical paradise that turned to tragedy. The trip was an opportunity for a group of young people to celebrate the end of one phase of their lives and the beginning of another. But for one young woman on that ill-fated trip, paradise it was not. For that young woman, Natalee Holloway, the trip was a brutal contrast to a life full of promise and hope."
I think they simply got confused here and, instead of the lawsuit, thought they were writing the voice-over for the trailer when they sell the movie rights to the story.
The lawsuit describes van der Sloot as "The Predator," alleging his parents let the boy, then 17 years old, spend his free time drinking, gambling and "trawling for victims."
This is also how he will be portrayed in the movie. He is going to be a 12 foot tall mechanical beast who fights Alien. But that is in the sequel, after he returns from the future to this time protect Natalee instead of kill her.
In a section of the case called "Natalee's Nightmare," the lawsuit alleges that "the next hours of Natalee's young life were marked by torment, terror and debasement," adding that she was kept against her will, sexually assaulted and fondled by van der Sloot and "his accomplices" as she "drifted in and out of consciousness."
This is where they just start to make shit up. And it gets progressively worse:
"torment, terror, debasement"- okay yea you are probably correct;
"kept against her will, sexually assaulted, fondled"- well maybe, but you really have no idea and not only cannot prove it, but a preponderance of the facts doesn't really support that either
and finally, "she drifted in and out of consciousness"- this is the kicker for me, how you can allege such a specific happening in this instance.
I am not trying to be inconsiderate about the situation, but all of it is pretty ridiculous.
1) sending their immature daughter to Aruba by herself;
2) interfered and in whatever way possible just generally annoyed the investigators in Aruba;
3) threatened to sue the island of Aruba, Yes that's right, not anyone in particular, but the entire island.
Natalee's mother, Elizabeth Ann Twitty (whose name is kinda funny in its own right), has gone all Hollywood and is pissed of they haven't had any press in weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if she hired an agent to represent her. I am not trying to be insensitive, but they need to understand that the girl is just gone. They probably aren't going to find her and they definitely aren't going to find out what happened that night. So all this is simply posturing.
More importantly, why do you keep looking at everyone else to blame, Ms. Twitty? You have blamed the Aruban investigators, the guys Natalee was hanging out with, the U.S. government for not doing enough, the whole island of Aruba, etc...
Maybe for a second you should look at it from a different perspective. I know it's a lot easier to blame someone else, but maybe you shouldn't have sent your 18 year old daughter from Alabama to Aruba to party like a rockstar. Maybe she should have been more responsible about hanging out with a friend instead of random people she had never met. And finally, maybe she should have had more awareness and not decided it was a good idea to go get gang banged by three dudes she just met, on an island she had never been to.
Basically, Twitty has showed about as much intelligence since Natalee disappeared as she or her daughter did before.
But all that is simply background to the latest development, of which I am asking for clarification.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/17/holloway.suit/index.html
The Holloways have sued Joran van der Sloot, a Dutch national and one of the teens they allege was involved. And they filed the law suit in New York.
So basically, the mother of the girl from Alabama, who disappeared in Aruba, is suing the Dutch guy she says was involved, and is doing it in New York. This sounds like that episode of Star Trek when the Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans are all trying to claim the same planet and they don't know whose laws to follow.
The 16-page lawsuit makes its case with a mixture of fact and supposition. Here are a few of my favorites:
"This is a case about a high-school graduation trip to a tropical paradise that turned to tragedy. The trip was an opportunity for a group of young people to celebrate the end of one phase of their lives and the beginning of another. But for one young woman on that ill-fated trip, paradise it was not. For that young woman, Natalee Holloway, the trip was a brutal contrast to a life full of promise and hope."
I think they simply got confused here and, instead of the lawsuit, thought they were writing the voice-over for the trailer when they sell the movie rights to the story.
The lawsuit describes van der Sloot as "The Predator," alleging his parents let the boy, then 17 years old, spend his free time drinking, gambling and "trawling for victims."
This is also how he will be portrayed in the movie. He is going to be a 12 foot tall mechanical beast who fights Alien. But that is in the sequel, after he returns from the future to this time protect Natalee instead of kill her.
In a section of the case called "Natalee's Nightmare," the lawsuit alleges that "the next hours of Natalee's young life were marked by torment, terror and debasement," adding that she was kept against her will, sexually assaulted and fondled by van der Sloot and "his accomplices" as she "drifted in and out of consciousness."
This is where they just start to make shit up. And it gets progressively worse:
"torment, terror, debasement"- okay yea you are probably correct;
"kept against her will, sexually assaulted, fondled"- well maybe, but you really have no idea and not only cannot prove it, but a preponderance of the facts doesn't really support that either
and finally, "she drifted in and out of consciousness"- this is the kicker for me, how you can allege such a specific happening in this instance.
I am not trying to be inconsiderate about the situation, but all of it is pretty ridiculous.