Simviation Forums

Dutch crime reporter Peter R. de Vries solved the Natalee Holloway case. Or at least he says he did ...

It is all over the Dutch media that Peter and his team investigated the case in the past months using hidden camera's. Details will remain vague untill Sunday when Peter unfolds the mystery in an extra long episode of his TV show on Dutch national television.

Dutch 'newssite' VKMAG found an open directory in Peter's english website with a page that contained a transcription of the conversations Peter had with Aruban District Attorney Hans Mos. The directory was immediately closed when the news got out but here's a screenshot of the page ...

Ironically this picture says more than a thousand words

Let's hope this case is solved then!

I'll be watching Sunday!!

Obviously it would be good to see this solved, but I cant help but think, how big of an ass is this guy? using the case to bring in ratings. I'd question just how much he really has, otherwise he wouldn't risk another network stealing it.

Obviously it would be good to see this solved, but I cant help but think, how big of an ass is this guy? using the case to bring in ratings. I'd question just how much he really has, otherwise he wouldn't risk another network stealing it.

The confession he got was obtained from a hidden camera I've read. Peter r de Vries isn't just a measly crime reporter. He is quite good at what he does

http://www.peterrdevries.com/images/Press%20release.pdf

http://www.peterrdevries.com/

I had to check Wikipedia to see who Natalee Holloway was...Sad story :-/

I dont care how good he is. He's using this to milk ratings nothing more.
And to be honest I believe in the legal world what he has wont do much more than re-open the interest in the case as they cant convict him on this.

He's using this to milk ratings nothing more.

Very true Craig. But however sad this whole Holloway case is, Peter R. de Vries still runs a TV show as a business and he obviously need his ratings ...

I'd say that if this guy claims to have "solved" this case, the authorities would be all over him to prove it.  Why are we waiting until Sunday?  Someone disappears off the face of the Earth and we have to wait until someone with his own TV show comes up with answers?  Something sounds fishy here.  Yes, it would be great if we could put this sad case to rest, the bottom line is that someone knows what happened.  But it's been a long time with no clues, nothing.

If this case is solved, it'll be all over the news.  We'll see.  

Keep us informed.  I can't get that TV show, but I do watch the news.

Peter R de Vries is just taking revenge for the fact that Joran van der Sloot (the suspected murderer) threw a glass of wine in his face a couple of weeks ago after a television interview. He probably has something otherwise he wouldn't bring it out but by waiting until sunday he's now giving the public a chance to lash out to van der Sloot.

The fact that the transcript is (was) available on his website for a short time only adds fuel to the fire. Reading the comments on VKmag.nl and Geenstijl.nl (two very big Dutch weblogs) go from "I hope they find Natalee" to "Let's hang the entire family van der Sloot".

If Peter R de Vries has evidence, he should have given it to the proper authorities, not making a huge television circus of it.

Crash

Believe or Not , I can see aruba in some high coast from my country,(really close) that really was a mistery :-/

Normally sensationalist shite masquerading as news really gets under my skin, and I do my best these days to ignore it.  Or, if it comes in print form, I may try to convince my cat to mess on it.  But, this case and these recent "news" developments warranted a bit of commentary, or so I decided.

I dont care how good he is. He's using this to milk ratings nothing more.

As to whether this could be nothing more than a ratings ploy, I have a couple of other ideas.

First, profiteering off bringing criminals to 'justice' has a long tradition.  From collecting bounties to rewards, many people have found the extra motivation to find themselves 'assisting' law enforcement by dint of financial profit.  I know that sounds rather crass, but it is true.  Someone can be serving the law and their own wallets all at the same time.  Sometimes our moral and ethical inclinations need a littel extra push.

Secondly, sometimes an appeal to the public is made to effect justice when more sedate and conventional means have been exhausted.  Tame examples would include wanted posters.  But, in this case, something has happened, presumably a crime, and more traditional efforts of investigation have apparently stalled.  While sensational journalism is apparently de Vries' job (which, we all have to find a way to put food on the table, ne?), it doesn't prevent him from moving forward this case in a more public fashion than the authorities are able.  In other words, not only can Mr. de Vries ratings be advantaged, the case can be benefited, too.

In just these two reasons alone, I can believe that there is more than simple ratings in the works.  Very rarely can motivations and the like be narrowed down to one simple thing.  Life, even crappy TV life, is usually more complex.

And to be honest I believe in the legal world what he has wont do much more than re-open the interest in the case as they cant convict him on this.

Yes, it is true that we do not convict people on TV shows alone.  Thank goodness!  However, media has played an increasing role in the relationship between crime and punishment.  Just the ability to record and review events - everything from the actual crimes to intentional or unintentional admissions of guilt - has given new scope to the way investigations are conducted and the way criminals prosecuted.  Technology continuously changes the way we live our lives, and the way we effect our laws is no different.

I just want you to know, I am not disagreeing with you with any vehemence.  Personally, I think these kinds of shows are utter tripe.  But, I just wanted to give you some more food for thought.

Meh.  My 2-yen.

Be well,
~Darrin

Like Darrin I am very sceptical of this style of reporting. Even if he has solved the case & found the people responsible I don't see what it will achieve, except boost the TV ratings. From the little I know of this case it's reasonable to suppose that the missing girl is dead but there are no witnesses & no body has been found. If this investigation has turned up anything significant the proper procedure would be to hand the evidence over to the appropriate authorities, not broadcast it on mainstream TV. If this programme is shown locally it could prejudice any future prosecution making it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring the alleged murderer(s) to justice.

This is the first I've heard of the island of Aruba (I had to look it up to find out where it is) but the hidden camera footage would not normally be admissible as evidence & this case would be thrown out of any courtroom in America & Europe. There are similar examples where the police know very well who committed terrible crimes but without proof there is nothing they can do about it.

It has always been a mystery how anyone can be charged with murder, found guilty, and imprisoned, without the existence of a body...>>>

Habeas Corpus: (literally;

It has always been a mystery how anyone can be charged with murder, found guilty, and imprisoned, without the existence of a body...>>>

It's very rare but as you point out it has happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2562195.stm

I just picked this up from AOL news:

"On Thursday, Aruban prosecutors had said they were investigating new information provided by de Vries. Without providing details, the prosecutors said the new material might help them determine how Holloway died and what happened to her body."

There's an entire article there about this, but this summarizes it.