April 25, 2006


Dan: Is this as crazy as I think it is? Julia, is really as crazy as it sounds? That the son of the police commissioner may have falsely implicated another kid because he was mad at him?!

Julia: (nonchalantly) I wouldn’t exactly say it that way. I think there were statements made by Michael Dompig that implicated this young man and there was a lot of speculation that this boy had spent some time with Natalee. (Since when? Last week?) So it was normal for the police to pick up him based on that information, ask him questions; and as it turns out he wasn’t as cooperative as the police expected which landed this kid in jail. (Then how is he OUT of jail, Julia?)

Dan: Sounds to me that Dompig made false statements! He said he (Dompig's son) is a kid, got confused and frustrated and he said things he shouldn’t have said…it went too far, one started talking about the other and the other talked back, and it became something worse than a soap opera!

Vinda (attorney): Yes, but I don’t think we can say that Dompig is saying that whatever his son said about this young man, that were false accusations…he doesn’t say what it is that his son exaggerated. (SPINNING…)

Dan: But everything he is saying is “he is sorry about it”, “he’s taking it back”, “his son was tricked”, “he was frustrated”, “he was emotionally vulnerable” …he’s certainly not standing by the statements his son made.

Vinda: (Spinning like a top) We must keep one thing in mind, when this young man, GVC, was arrested, he was not arrested only on accusations or statements given by Dompig’s son…there was more to implicate GVC and based on that, that is why he was arrested.

Dan: Do you know that to be the case, Julia?

Julia: Yes, I do. And I also know that there was a taxi cab driver (a witness Julia probably made up…she and her cohorts probably paid off some poor-ass cabbie who needed some crack cash) who also gave a witness statement that also implicated this young man.

(Rolling her eyes) This wasn’t specifically about Michael Dompig pointing the finger at him. There was substantial reason to pick up this boy. (Again, Julia...then WHY is he OUT of jail?)

Dan: I’ve been critical of people who overstate the blame that the aruban officials deserve in the context of this investigation. I’ve often said that there are many police departments around this country make the same mistakes that they made in Aruba. But with that said, I’m listening to Julia and Vinda sort of suggest, ‘you know, look…this happened, it not that big a deal…’

(Flabbergasted) Uh…I mean, if THIS happened in the United States where the SON of the POLICE commissioner leading an investigation made comments that weren’t even…let’s just say they weren’t entirely accurate about this investigation we’d be going nuts!!!

Clint Van Zandt: We would. A number of things Dan…we have three different stories that implicate this young man. One, there is this female cab driver who says that Natalee and her friends talked about this ‘blonde haired blue-eyed dutch kid’ who Natalee really liked…was really hitting on. Beth refutes those statements, the students in the United States refute those statements; then you have another story that says the Dutch America’s Most Wanted came up with this young man’s name; and now we seem to have the reality that you are talking about right now--that the #2 man in the police department…the person who headed up this investigation for months...

There wasn’t enough relationship between he (Dompig) and his 19-year old son to say, “wait a minute son, if you get upset don’t start name dropping…come to your dad, let me tell you, take a drink of calm and relax a little bit..” This case…and I know the Arubans are trying…and as for your other guests, I’m not going to slam dunk ‘em, BUT…somewhere Dan, this case lies between either ineptitude, inexperience, or corruption and where does it lie? Why are we 11 months into this, 9 people have been arrested and no one has been charged?

Vinda: (Now spinning out of control…) I still keep repeating that our legal system down here works this way. If there are enough indications to implicate somebody in some crime, the person will be arrested and the investigation will continue. When a person is arrested, it does not wrap up the investigation, actually it’s only starting then.

Dan: (Sighs, obviously annoyed with their stupidity…) Yeah, yeah…alright. Well, I don’t know. Seems like a mess to me.

Seemed like a mess to me starting on June 1, 2005.


Anonymous said...

great job Michelle! You know them all well. Can this get any more bizarre? I would kick Julia Renfoe's butt, if I could get ahold of her. grrrr

Anonymous said...

search_type=enty&query=domiciliary&db=ahd&Submit=Search is the link.
1) domicile. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Middle English domicilie, from Old French domicile, from Latin domicilium, from domus, house.
See dem- in Appendix I.domi·cili·ary (-sil-er) -ADJECTIVE...

Something is wrong with Joe Tacopina's sentence of the following: "Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Twitty is not a domiciliary or resident of New York." The term "domiciliary" is an adjective. The correct grammar should construct the said sentence as "Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Twitty is not a domicile or resident of New York." Or in plain American English, "Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann
Twitty is not a house or resident of New York." We all know that Beth is the mother of Natalee,
and Beth is not a house. Therefore this sentence has the wrong meaning, and its wrong meaning
makes the whole sentence invalid, and hence it makes the whole document of Joe Tacopina's filing invalid.

blackhawk said...

Dompigs son should be arrested and charged with Obstruction of Justice...Plain and simple..If these parents of GVC don't scream bloody murder and insist on his arrest[[THEN WHY NOT!!]] OK..who's got more dirt on who AGAIN...You take my son down then I will take your son down...This damn island is sooo filthy with corruption a herd of turds wouldn't live there...Julia is beyond my vocabulary...no mere words can describe her....Just complete insanity...I remember Beth saying that their is so much going on down there its frightening...how true!!

Anonymous said...

When comparing the latest court filings of John Kelly and Joe Tacopina, people can see that the presentations of John Kelly are of a much better and superior quality. John's rebuttals are clear, straightforward and precise. While Joe's arguments are verbose twined by too many crytic and off-focus case laws links which, of many of them were having been reversed or overturned by the courts. In brief, Joe T. has not comprehended the civil case filed against Joran & Paulus van der Sloot. Joe T. has created a chaos of his own unrevealing writings.

Anonymous said...

In Aruba law, the civil case can preempt the criminal case. One current example is PVDS vs Aruban
government civil lawsuit to be awarded by the Dutch judge Rik Smid. Rik Smid forced the Public
Prosecutor Karin Jassen to close her Joran criminal investagation in order to review the criminal
case files to determine the amount of money that the Aruban government should pay the Paul van
der Sloot family for damages caused by Joran's criminal behavior. If this New York civil case were moved to Aruba, it will be a double whammy to Karin Jassen to reopen the Joran Aruban
criminal case and close it again and forced the Aruban Government to pay double the money paying
to Paulus and Joran van der Sloot. Therefore Robin A. Schair's opinion expressed in Joe Tacopina's Exhibit Q is incorrect.