Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Lies of Arlene Schippers

It appears Arlene Schippers used the bait of the 3 suspects being arrested again to silence Spencer Bachus. She knew, or professed to know Aruban Law. If you read these 2 posts from some great work at Scared Monkeys by Miss-Understimated and Maggie you can see something is not right with this picture.

Bachus in his formal release claims confidentiality and "not wanting to harm the investigation" the same line they used on Beth. Karin Janssen the Chief Prosecutor told Beth directly that the police did not want to arrest the 3 in the beginning so they could be watched. That is an absolute lie and something you do with drug dealers, not murderers. Yes, murderers as they threw that word around liberally when the guards were arrested.

It appears the same strategy to lie and deceive was in place when Arlene "my cousin arrested on suspicion of heavy battery" Schippers duped Congressman Bachus.


Well, I spoke with the prosecutors and the police investigators. And they surely plan to re-interrogate these boys again; however, what their objective is, is to make a plan of interrogation. And to do so, they need some more information about what happened the hours before. And that‘s the objective why they want to interview, re-interview also the (INAUDIBLE) students. 20 lawyers for people who know nothing and we left a girl on the beach..

COSBY: When do you think they‘re going to interview those students?

What sort of time line are you looking at, Arlene?

SCHIPPER: Well, that is an (INAUDIBLE) procedure request that they‘ve made, already more than a month ago. And basically, it is a request that the FBI has to fulfill.

We spoke to the FBI. And they promised us to look where the—where that request at this moment is, because it‘s a really difficult request. It has to go to the State Department. And they promised us, as did Congressman Bachus, to speed it up.

COSBY: Now, you said that, OK, after that, they do intend for sure to bring back in the brothers and also Joran Van Der Sloot?

SCHIPPER: Absolutely. It‘s one of the—bring in for interrogation. It‘s one of their objectives. And they‘re working on an interrogation plan, but, you know, as our laws, our procedural laws differs a little bit, that influences the investigative methods that we can use here.

So they have to carefully go about it. And to zoom in, as we call it, back on these suspects, they need to carefully do that and strategically do that.

COSBY: What about some of the suspects‘ friends?

SCHIPPER: Absolutely. That is one of the current activities of the police and of the planned objectives of the police. We gave an expose to the congressman on the current and planned actions. And one of those actions are interviewing friends, interviewing witnesses, re-interviewing witnesses. It‘s all already happening and going on.

COSBY: Arlene, when could we see—as we were looking at a picture of Deepak, and Satish, and Joran a second ago—when could we see them called in again? How soon?

SCHIPPER: Well, that is something that I cannot comment on, because that is what we call tactical information, because, as I said, they need to carefully zoom in on them. They need to work on their plan of investigation, on interrogation, because, given the information that they‘ve get of the re-interviews of the witnesses (INAUDIBLE) students, as well as the friends, they‘re going to—they have to have to reestablish, for instance, the relationship between Joran, if there was a relationship between Joran and Natalee, how the events unfolded that night, et cetera, et cetera.

So based that, they will move in on a technical way how and when they will interrogate these boys again.


And this is the official release from Spencer Bachus:


And this open letter from Tamikosmom, still the best Poster on the subject of Natalee Holloway:

Open Letter to Congressman Spencer Bachus

I would appreciate if you could provide me with explanations to my queries in regard to your meeting with the Aruban Delegation in December, 2005 concerning the Natalee Holloway investigation.

1. Why did you agree to the terms of the Aruban delegation in regards to legal representative of the family not being permitted to attend the meeting? Was the purpose of the meeting not about representing a constituent who perceived that the Aruban investigation into the disappearance of her daughter was not pursuing justice .... there was an agenda?

2. Why did you agree to a meeting with the Aruban delegation considering that the person representing the investigation was being paid by the Aruban Tourism Authority? Do you not believe that this created the appearance of a conflict of interest? .... Aruban economy? ..... Justice for Natalee?

3. What was said in two short hours that changed your position regarding a six month investigation which prior you had publicly described as "disturbing"?

4. How did you justify your new position to your constituent who, to this day, perceives the investigation as a coverup which is related to a conflict of interest in regards to the main suspects.

Thank you.