Radio Netherlands Worldwide

SSO Login

More login possibilities:

  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
Friday 19 December  

“Van der Sloot went on gambling after murder”

Published on 25 March 2011 - 5:15pm
More about:

Joran van der Sloot may have spent the night playing online poker after murdering Stephany Flores, according to Peruvian forensic investigators who have carried out a detailed examination of his laptop.

The detectives also found that Flores did not search for information on Natalee Holloway immediately before the murder, as Van der Sloot claims. The laptop was used to search for details of the Holloway case, but much earlier in the day, Dutch website Crimesite reports. Van der Sloot says he killed Flores in a fury when he saw she was reading about his alleged involvement in Holloway’s disappearance.

Between 04.24 and 08.23 Van der Sloot’s laptop was in use, with a number of pauses, and two poker websites were visited. This could suggest Van der Sloot went on playing poker after murdering Flores. Another possibility is that the murder took place after the poker games were finished. This would mean the killing did not take place during a row shortly after the two returned to the hotel at 05.30, as he claimed in his initial statement to the police.

Crime of passion
Van der Sloot says that after an evening at the casino he and Flores returned to the hotel at her suggestion to go on playing poker. When he checked his e-mail he found hate mail relating to his alleged involvement in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, he says. When he returned to the room after fetching coffee, he claims he found Flores using his laptop to look for information on the Holloway case, and lost his temper.

Van der Sloot’s defence lawyer argues he killed Flores in the heat of the moment when the row turned into a physical fight. The murder was therefore not premeditated but a ‘crime of passion’. But the data on the laptop shows the search for information on Holloway, said to have prompted the row, took place much earlier in the day, during the afternoon.

The Peruvian computer experts also found that after the murder Van der Sloot went looked for information on countries that don’t have an extradition treaty with Latin American countries. He then checked the bus service to the border with Chile.


© Radio Netherlands Worldwide  



Anonymous 31 March 2011 - 9:28pm / United States

I am just amused at the authors spelling of (defence) It's defense you moron!

user avatar
Louise Dunne 1 April 2011 - 12:23pm / Netherlands

The RNW house style is UK english, hence 'defence'. 'Defense' is US english. So the author's spelling is correct.

Marie 28 March 2011 - 6:36pm / USA

MaryS, are you in here causing trouble again? You trickster!

MNIN2010: You forgot "marysmarys" - used much earlier in these discussions.

MNIN2010 26 March 2011 - 10:49pm / USA

Oh.. and by the way, RachelM. You also call yourself "MaryS", "Mary S", "Mary Smith", and "Boycoyt". Among other names. And you continue to post ridiculus conspiracy theories that even you don't believe to start controversies. You get your kicks from that. Don't believe me? Click on RachelM

RachelM 27 March 2011 - 5:22am / Canada

Stalking me to another website, right, MNIN2010, and trying a little amateur psychology? You'll never figure me out. And I don't think you have all the answers about van der Sloot either, although obviously in your own mind you're God's gift to profiling. You state all the facts as if you were there (he raped Holloway, blah blah blah) but there are some things we'll never know.

MNIN2010 27 March 2011 - 9:28pm / USA

That's exactly what I expected from you RachelM/MaryS/Mary Smith/Marysmarys/Boycoyt/et. al. You didn't dissappoint.

I say, "you've been taking the unpopular side of this particular argument to the absurd extreme at a variety of websites with a whole slew of aliases for the sole purpose of making readers react". And I haven't even ventured a guess as to "why" you do that have I? Would you like me to?

And, when I exposed your aliases (and I'm NOT the first to do so am I?) you reacted by attacking me didn't you? You called me a stalker to attempt to discredit me. You called me what was that again "God's gift to profiling" "and "amateur profiler" even though I didn't profile you. Yet.

You said I seem to know everything as if I were there. That's a very interesting statement for you to make. Why? Because all I did was what you did. I took the popular side of the Joran's argument to the logical extreme.

Notice how it easy it was for me to push your buttons?

RachelM 28 March 2011 - 12:59am / Canada

You wrote, "I took the popular side of the argument." I'm sure that's how you've lived your life, MNIN2010. Don't question, go with the flow, agree with everyone, be a yes man. Stay on that bandwagon.

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 5:52pm / USA

Are you implying that because 6 billion people, including me, believe Joran is guilty and 1 person, you, believe he's innocent that makes me a "yes man"? a "bandwagonier"? A "go with the flow jack"? "agreeable Joe"? And more importantly that those labels mean I'm WRONG about Joran? ******* That is another ad hominem attack. Which is all you seem able to do. You're attempting to discredit ME by attaching labels to me that you think others find less than desirable. ******** Furthermore, you're also taking the approach of "appeal to common practices" but in reverse. "Because everyone does it, it's wrong". Two fallacies in 1!!! ******* And of course you're appealing to the audience instead of addressing the arguments. ******** so once again. why is it that you can't just write a logical argument and defend IT instead of attacking me and everyone else?

RachelM 28 March 2011 - 12:56am / Canada

MNIN2010, your ridiculous insistence on being right in every detail, and your egotistical sensitivity to the least criticism (ie. YOUR buttons are easily pushed) has earned you a tentative diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. You definitely have a personality disorder. Probably several. Don't you see that you attacked me first.

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 5:35pm / USA

oh.. and you say I'm insensitive to criticism? You haven't critiqued my arguments at all. Just me. So. Here's another chance. Have a go at it. Here are two very simple ones. ****** Premise #1. Joran is a liar. Premise #2 Joran gave conflicting stories to police regarding Stephanie's murder. Proposition #1. Joran's stories about Stephanies murder are not credible ****** premise #1. The forensic evidence against Joran is very strong. Premise #2. Joran's only defense is his own words. Proposition #3, because Joran is not credible and because his only defense is his own words, the forensic evidence is stronger and Joran is guilty of Stephanies murder.

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 5:24pm

No surprise there either RachelM/MaryS/marysmarys/boycoyt/anonymous/etal. ******* You've been writing nonsense all over the internet about a murderer, his two dead victims, the victims familes, the police, a variety of governments, and the prisons in Peru for years. And yes, I've recently been attacking your theories from a logical standpoint whenever I see them. At the same time, I've discovered and exposed that you've been using a series of aliases to make it look like there's more than 1 of you behind your theories. And I've also discovered you're a liar. You lied when you claimed you were forced to switch your identities from MaryS to RachelM for example. That may seem trivial, but it goes along with your multiple aliases to add credibility to your theories. Some may think that fraudulent ******* Other than that, I've never attacked you personally have I? Did I ever call you a paranoid schitzophrenic with delusions of persecution? Case in point for example? The screen name you chose of "MaryS" for example? Did I ever say that your obsession with proving Joran's innocence is an example of persuing an illogical grandiose mission (which is another manifestation of paranoid schitzophrenia)? No? Did I ever suggest you should discuss these theories of yours with your shrink during your twice-weekly sessions? No? Well.. how about that! ******** And there you go again. Because I had the "gall", to analyze and dismiss your arguments based on your logical fallicies, you claim I have a personality disorder. NPD to be precise. Because I attacked your arguments, you attacked me personally. That is a classic example of an ad hominem defense. Which means your theories are so bad that you can't even defend them. You have to attack me instead. ******* When I put all that together, it means this to me. Either 1) you don't believe the BS you write here and you don't know how to argue, or 2) you need professional help. I assumed the first. Which is it?

Anonymous 26 March 2011 - 8:00pm / usa

Joran is not guilty to first degree murder,he should get 3-5yrs, I think it is kind of a mystery that the FBI search his computer,and low and behold the hollaway search was done early in the day. I think that is B..... with stink all over.

MNIN2010 26 March 2011 - 10:45pm / USA

For that matter, crimes of passion usually don't involve two strangers going to a hotel room, one of them ending up murdered by the other, and the murderer fleeing the country. NOPE. Not buying it.

Joran lured Stephanie to his room with the intent of robbing and murdering her. Which he managed to do. He thought he could get away with it as he did with Natalee (who he raped, robbed and murdered 5 yrs earlier) but there was too much blood. So he ran. Now he's lying again.

MNIN2010 26 March 2011 - 10:39pm / USA

First, I don't don't believe you are from the USA. We don't speak that way here.

Second, there is ample evidence to convict Joran of "simple murder with special circumstances", which is what he's charged with. The special circumstances are violence and robbery. Joran obviously murdered Stephanie violently. Joran obviously robbed he. Her credit cards and money were in his pocket. He stole her car after killing her. Cut and dried.

Joran is attempting to plead down the charges to crime of passion. And it's up to Joran to convince the prosecutor and judges to do that. Joran has to prove that case. Right now, it's his word, and Joran is NOT a credible witness, versus the laptop experts testimony. And Guess what the judges will say? Why should we let you plead it down. You're not convincing. GUILTY. 35 years in Castro Castro.

RachelM 27 March 2011 - 5:27am / Canada

Read my lips: IT WAS A SET-UP

Marie 28 March 2011 - 6:41pm / USA

You forgot to mention that he was set up by the FBI!;-)

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 6:22pm

yes.. by the mysterious Elton Garcia. The one and only FBI agent who actually looks like an FBI agent (according to RachelM/etal). And by the Peruvian government. And by Beth Holloway. But mostly by the Rigellians Kang and Kodos.

MNIN2010 27 March 2011 - 10:05pm / USA

"read my lips"? RachelM/MaryS/Mary Smith/MarysMarys/boycoyt/ That's a pretty silly statement don't you think? I can't see your lips can I? But I can certainly read your writing here. Why not just write "IT WAS A SETUP!". Doesn't that make more sense?

Once again it doesn't really matter, because you've taken the unpopular side of the Joran argument to the absurd extreme to make people react. Even you don't believe it. Why should we?

RachelM 28 March 2011 - 1:04am / Canada

It's a figure of speech. Although, being a stalker, you might well be able to see my lips.

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 7:00pm / USA

ad hominem. Another feeble attempt to discredit me by labeling me a "stalker". Can't you do better?

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 6:06pm / USA

Really? A figure of speech? huh.. Never would have guessed. Because of the way you have it all twisted around. ****** the original idea of "read my lips" was based on lip reading.. It was for people who had hearing difficulty to communicate with others by observing the motion of their lips as they spoke words and interpreting those motions as words. And you can imagine the lack of accuracy in such a process yes? ******* well over the years, politicians and others changed the meaning of the phrase from "if you can't hear my spoken words, read my lips (carefully to avoid mistakes)" to "if you don't BELIEVE my spoken words, read my lips as I speak because my lips won't lie".. which of course makes little sense. A person is more likely making a lip reading mistake than a hearing mistake. ******* What you said makes even less sense. You said.. "if you don't believe my writings, read my lips as I write my words for my lips don't lie" which is complete nonsense. Who writes with their lips? Why would your lips not lie while your pen does? Do you mumble while you write? Perhaps you should have said "read my fingers". But of course, that implies something entirely different doesn't it Marys/marysmarys/Boycoyt/RachelM/anonymous/etal? And I suppose if you're into finger reading, there are probably a few dozen readers here right now pointing 1 or 2 fingers each at YOU. Can you read them?

Anonymous 26 March 2011 - 8:46pm / NL


MNIN2010 26 March 2011 - 6:18pm / USA

RachelM. Are you saying you believe Joran told the truth when he said "2 men broke into my room and murdered stephanie. I managed to escape and run to Chile without calling the police" and you believe he lied when he said "I killed her when she looked at my laptop in a crime of passion"? Because that's his story TODAY. Joran has admitted to killing Stephanie.

As to the time stamps, yes, dates when files are created and opened are stored relative to the date and time stored on the computer in its battery backed up CMOS memory. That date and time is readily available for a computer forensics expert to log during his analysis!

Now, IF someone were to log onto the internet and open a file on a server in GodOnlyKnowsWhere, that server and the ISP provider the person is using (and even google) all keep logs of the IP address of the requesting computer and the time of the request independantly of the CMOS chip.

So let's say this. Let's say Joran's CMOS date/time was off by 17 hours. at 8 am May 30, Jorans laptop said it was 3 pm May 29. If Stephanie used the ISP at the hotel to google Joran at 8 am, as Joran suggests, the hotel ISP would register an IP address for joran's room accessing the internet at 8am May 30 and Joran's computer would say it happened at 3pm May29. The site visited would record it as 8am peruvian time (actually in GMT time whatever that translates to) not at 3pm May29.

Meaning it should be very easy for the police to determine and verify the exact time the files were opened.

REGARDLESS, the evidence in the case is this. Very very strong forensic evidence linking Joran to the crime. Including Jorans own confession. He will undoubtedly be found guilty of Stephanies murder.

Joran's only defense to date is that it was a crime of passion. Not, the video tapes are invalid. Not the blood evidence is invalid or improper. Not the prosecution contaminated the evidence by losing the chain of custody. Not that Stephanie's credit cards found in his wallet were a gift. Not that he fled out of fear he might be murdered next. etc. he says "I killed her out of passion". So now the burden of proof lies on Joran to convince the judges it was truly a crime of passion.

The problem Joran has is this. The only evidence to his defense is his own testimony. And joran is NOT a credible witness. Everybody knows that. Who's going to believe him? Especially if an expert PC forensic analysist testifies there is no evidence to support Jorans story?

BTW. I can't see Joran's laptop being 17 hours behind. Ahead, perhaps. Amsterday is 6 hours ahead of Lima. Taipai is 13 hours ahead. Aruba is 1 hour ahead. If Joran is on local Taipai time and traveled to Lima his PC should be reading 9pm May30 when it's 8am May30 in Lima

RachelM 27 March 2011 - 5:39am / Canada

I think the real story was the first one he told to police in Chile. Two men, who had accosted them previously, broke into the room and murdered Stephanie. When he realized he had been framed, he took off. Later, evidence was planted on him. However, when he was interrogated in a brutal and illegal manner in Peru, he signed a confession which they would not throw out. So now he and his lawyer are making the best of it and going for the crime of passion plea.

MNIN2010 27 March 2011 - 10:09pm / USA

You don't believe that. Neither do I. You're just writing that nonsense under all your pen names to get people to react. Isn't that so RachelM/MaryS/Mary Smith/Marysmarys/Boycoyt/anonymous/ ?

MNIN2010 27 March 2011 - 10:06pm / USA

Joran was not interrogated in a brutal manner and you know it. You're just writing nonsense to get people to react.

RachelM 28 March 2011 - 1:03am / Canada

He said they threatened to hold his head under in a nearby pail of water. I believe it. It's cheap, it's effective. If you look at the video, you'll see one of the Peruvian police personnel with an incredibly angry, out of control look on his face. These aren't American or Canadian detectives trying to obtain a confession.

MNIN2010 4 April 2011 - 6:14pm / USA

your argument...
Premise 1) Joran said he was threatened by the Peruvian police. Proposition #1) Joran is innocent because he was threatened by the police ********** My response. Joran is a known liar. He has lied to everyone including the police. Therefore it is impossible to assume premise #1 is true. For that matter, Joran may or may not have been threatened but still may or may not have murdered stephanie. it is non-sequitor to assume threatened = innocence. ********* Try again RachelM/MaryS/marysmarys/boycoyt/anonymous/etal

RachelM 26 March 2011 - 4:48pm / Canada

I don't think that the times can be determined this precisely without very careful investigation. From a computer forensics website:

"The time and date that files were created can be important in cases involving computer evidence. However, the accuracy of the time and date stamps on files is directly tied to the accuracy of the time and date stored in the CMOS chip of the computer. Consequently, documenting the accuracy of these settings on the seized computer is important. Without such information, it will be all but impossible to validate the accuracy of the times and dates associated with relevant computer files." (from NTI website, retrieved March 26, 2011, from

The computer experts better be prepared to back up these statements with very careful documentation. What strikes me about this story is that the dates and times have a ring of truth when correlated with the suspect's original claims that he returned to the room to find the girl had been attacked by two men who had broken into the room. That would be a good reason to leave the country, when he realized he had been framed.

Anonymous 26 March 2011 - 6:59pm / NL

It's not as complicated as you might think. Just think server logs and machine ID.

RNW on Facebook

RNW Player

Video highlights

Ladies on the move
RNW is keen on featuring inspiring women in our target countries, women who...
What about men?
In many countries, men don't stick around to raise their children. This is...