s/o What happened to Natalie Holloway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she got drink, raped, killed and dumped on the ocean. This is a big part of why I hate alcohol, especially for young people. You just don't make sound decisions nor have the ability to care for yourself when impaired. Dumb girl got drunk.

You're evil and have no compassion. She was 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she got drink, raped, killed and dumped on the ocean. This is a big part of why I hate alcohol, especially for young people. You just don't make sound decisions nor have the ability to care for yourself when impaired. Dumb girl got drunk.

So she deserved to die because she had some fun on a tropical island?

PP didn't say Natalie deserved to die. Nobody is blaming the victim for her awful demise. However, someone didn't care if she deserved it or not. He took advantage of her fun-on-a-tropical-island condition. He didn't get the message about how rude and mean it is to do that. Maybe he got the message and just ignored it.

So if you decide to have fun by getting drunk, please remember the gamble you are taking. Not all people are nice and mannerly; some may not play fair.

Are you saying it was “mean and rude” of him to murder her????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This pos was strong enough to pick up a large piece of cinderblock and bash her face in? I don’t believe a word of his story. He killed her for sure but I bet she was strangled (that’s not hard to do) and then he and his dad took her body out to sea. There is no way he picked her up and deposited her on knee deep water and her body didn’t resurface. Either way I hope he meets his fate in jail. What a useless waste of space. Her poor poor mother.

I’m not usually a true crime person but I did a deep dive into the case of a girl about Holloway’s age who was murdered because it was in the town next to mine - Sarah Stern. The murderer was about Van Der Sloot’s age and it took him half an hour to strangle her. It would certainly be easier to pick up a cinder block.

When have you ever seen a lonesome cinder block on a beach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

+1. I tell my kids that when they are out and about, no one is looking out for them but them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two? In your example there’s no rapist and intentional murder. If your kid were walking home with their AirPods in and got raped and murdered, would you blame the AirPod choice or the rapist/murder?

Risk mitigation is part of life, yes. But she’s was killed only because she didn’t know she was with a sociopath criminal. If he had been a nice guy, none of us would know that he just walked her home safely. HE and HIS choices are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

+1. I tell my kids that when they are out and about, no one is looking out for them but them.

You should act according to the world we live in, not the world you think we should live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two? In your example there’s no rapist and intentional murder. If your kid were walking home with their AirPods in and got raped and murdered, would you blame the AirPod choice or the rapist/murder?

Risk mitigation is part of life, yes. But she’s was killed only because she didn’t know she was with a sociopath criminal. If he had been a nice guy, none of us would know that he just walked her home safely. HE and HIS choices are the problem.

The point is that risk mitigation is valid whether it’s a rapist or getting hit by lightning. It’s the environment. Would you stroll the streets of cape town after dark? It’s not your fault that there are people who intend to harm you. If you do get assaulted, it’s not your fault in that it wasn’t your choice, but clearly, your actions contributed to the consequence.

You have to separate cause and effect from blame. The driver of the car who has a heart attack and hits a pedestrian is the cause of the accident, but is not to blame. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two? In your example there’s no rapist and intentional murder. If your kid were walking home with their AirPods in and got raped and murdered, would you blame the AirPod choice or the rapist/murder?

Risk mitigation is part of life, yes. But she’s was killed only because she didn’t know she was with a sociopath criminal. If he had been a nice guy, none of us would know that he just walked her home safely. HE and HIS choices are the problem.

The point is that risk mitigation is valid whether it’s a rapist or getting hit by lightning. It’s the environment. Would you stroll the streets of cape town after dark? It’s not your fault that there are people who intend to harm you. If you do get assaulted, it’s not your fault in that it wasn’t your choice, but clearly, your actions contributed to the consequence.

You have to separate cause and effect from blame. The driver of the car who has a heart attack and hits a pedestrian is the cause of the accident, but is not to blame. Get it?

Nope. You’re still victim blaming. You keep comparing accidents to criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

Who said it was? But if you know there are predatory men out there, you reduce your risk. You can only control what you can control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

Who said it was? But if you know there are predatory men out there, you reduce your risk. You can only control what you can control.

Victim blaming implies it’s her fault. She could have been just as drunk but left with a nice guy who didn’t hurt her. It’s not the alcohol, it’s the rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This pos was strong enough to pick up a large piece of cinderblock and bash her face in? I don’t believe a word of his story. He killed her for sure but I bet she was strangled (that’s not hard to do) and then he and his dad took her body out to sea. There is no way he picked her up and deposited her on knee deep water and her body didn’t resurface. Either way I hope he meets his fate in jail. What a useless waste of space. Her poor poor mother.

I’m not usually a true crime person but I did a deep dive into the case of a girl about Holloway’s age who was murdered because it was in the town next to mine - Sarah Stern. The murderer was about Van Der Sloot’s age and it took him half an hour to strangle her. It would certainly be easier to pick up a cinder block.

When did the search for her begin? Wouldn’t there be some forensic evidence left behind on a beach that a dog could smell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

Who said it was? But if you know there are predatory men out there, you reduce your risk. You can only control what you can control.

Victim blaming implies it’s her fault. She could have been just as drunk but left with a nice guy who didn’t hurt her. It’s not the alcohol, it’s the rapist.

DP. It wasn’t her fault, it was the rapist/murderer’s fault, but that doesn’t make her any less raped or murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two? In your example there’s no rapist and intentional murder. If your kid were walking home with their AirPods in and got raped and murdered, would you blame the AirPod choice or the rapist/murder?

Risk mitigation is part of life, yes. But she’s was killed only because she didn’t know she was with a sociopath criminal. If he had been a nice guy, none of us would know that he just walked her home safely. HE and HIS choices are the problem.

The point is that risk mitigation is valid whether it’s a rapist or getting hit by lightning. It’s the environment. Would you stroll the streets of cape town after dark? It’s not your fault that there are people who intend to harm you. If you do get assaulted, it’s not your fault in that it wasn’t your choice, but clearly, your actions contributed to the consequence.

You have to separate cause and effect from blame. The driver of the car who has a heart attack and hits a pedestrian is the cause of the accident, but is not to blame. Get it?

Nope. You’re still victim blaming. You keep comparing accidents to criminals.

You are the only one throwing the idea of blame around. Where did anyone blame the victim? Getting robbed at gunpoint while out at 2 am by yourself in the tenderloin is the fault of the robber, but if you know that it’s a risk, you could and should have chosen not to walk by yourself or not at all. Expand your mind- it’s not a binary world. You can be an innocent victim and still have put yourself into harm’s way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joran van der Sloot almost certainly killed her. He murdered another girl 5 years later in Peru, was caught, pled guilty, and is now in prison.

And, 9:53, you're disgusting.

Agreed on all counts.

+100000.

Classic victim blaming.

Risk reduction is not victim-blaming.

- NP

Still victim blaming. Most of us have been drunk before but not raped and murdered. Because we didn’t run into a rapist or murderer. It is never the victims fault.

NP, I agree that risk reduction is not victim blaming. A teenage girl was just struck and killed in an auto pedestrian accident in the next town. She was running with air pods, and crossed against the signal without looking, according to a friend who unfortunately witnessed the collision. Should she have been struck by a car? No. Is it less likely that she would have been killed had she not been wearing AirPods? Perhaps. In your world, it is victim blaming to tell your kids not to wear AirPods when they run on the street. For the rest of us, it’s just parenting.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two? In your example there’s no rapist and intentional murder. If your kid were walking home with their AirPods in and got raped and murdered, would you blame the AirPod choice or the rapist/murder?

Risk mitigation is part of life, yes. But she’s was killed only because she didn’t know she was with a sociopath criminal. If he had been a nice guy, none of us would know that he just walked her home safely. HE and HIS choices are the problem.

The point is that risk mitigation is valid whether it’s a rapist or getting hit by lightning. It’s the environment. Would you stroll the streets of cape town after dark? It’s not your fault that there are people who intend to harm you. If you do get assaulted, it’s not your fault in that it wasn’t your choice, but clearly, your actions contributed to the consequence.

You have to separate cause and effect from blame. The driver of the car who has a heart attack and hits a pedestrian is the cause of the accident, but is not to blame. Get it?

Nope. You’re still victim blaming. You keep comparing accidents to criminals.

You are the only one throwing the idea of blame around. Where did anyone blame the victim? Getting robbed at gunpoint while out at 2 am by yourself in the tenderloin is the fault of the robber, but if you know that it’s a risk, you could and should have chosen not to walk by yourself or not at all. Expand your mind- it’s not a binary world. You can be an innocent victim and still have put yourself into harm’s way.

Wild that you think I’m seeing a binary world when you can’t understand the concept that the problem here is a man’s choice and behavior, not someone who chooses to drink. You are the one who needs to expand your thinking. If she left with him after one drink would you still be criticizing her? Or is it only after 5 drinks that you do that?