Rolls

 
iwabwu Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:32 pm
Has Joran denied being the last known person to be with her?

Wabbi, of all the very many silly questions you have posed on this case, this one is a real corker. Tell me, have YOU stopped beating your partner yet?

One thing that I have found depressing following this case is that many people seem to pass through the US education system without ever being taught how to use logic and clear-thinking. Your question is an object example of that.

How on earth could Joran KNOW if Natalee encountered someone AFTER they parted?

The question is simply and literally absurd. Unless he left her with somebody else (who would then by definition be the last person currently KNOWN to be with her) he can't deny or affirm because he couldn't possibly know.

But since you ask; Edward Kissle initially said that he saw Natalee on the beach, but later CHANGED HIS STORY. Lee Broughton initially told the FBI she was out partying until "3 or 4am" yet CHANGED HER STORY, saying she went directly to bed. We already knew she and/or Ruth had to be lying because of the two unexplained 3am keycard swipes.

Using the HMI yardstick this makes them liars, criminals, rapists, and murderers.

Wabbi> How could they know in the beginning that Joran was the last one known to be with a disappeared person?

Because Edward Kissle, Lee Broughton, and FEB (at least) didn't tell the truth about seeing her LATER when J2K are known to be on-line at home.

Broughton's FBI302 is so damaging to Beth's "character establishment" of Natalee that I doubt Beth released it, rather someone with access to it trying to point to the truth, a truth that would undermine Beth's OCD war on J2K and Aruba. And who other than Lee herself would have a copy? Or is Beth really so far off her rocker she would willingly put this bomb under her own construction?

Lee's lie is absolutely critical to who saw Natalee last. To pose one of your own questions back to you, "why was the truth not good enough", in this case for Lee?

Lee could have said that at 3:20am she could see the entire sweep of Palm Beach to the huts, and didn't see Natalee. This would be no different to the mystery fishermen.

Instead she opted to write herself right out of the script altogether by telling a much more significant lie than the a couple of hundred metres between the HI front door and the Huts told by J2K.

Why is Lee still traumatised by that night while J2K weren't? Why does Lee claim "flashbacks", and these associated with "party scenes" rather than, say, waking up in the morning?

Why couldn't Lee tell the truth Wabbi?

The obvious answer is that Lee (and Edward's) truth conflicts with Beth's.

Wabbi> That's one of the unanswered questions in my mind.

I have been reading your questions and the responses to them for a long time now, and given the obvious choice between you being an utterly witless bonehead, or fundamentally dishonest, I have concluded that you are the latter. You appear to be one of those Christians who thinks you can hide your dishonesty from God, but if you're such an open book in this life, your arse is toast in the next.