Holloway Lawsuit

[ViperPilot 0]

So the Holloways are suing the van der Sloots...what basis do they have for this lawsuit? I'm asking b/c I have no idea and can't seem to find the info anywhere, so thought maybe someone (i.e. lawrocket) could fill me in. I know it seems practically obvious that the kid had something, if not everything, to do w/ Natalie's disappearance, and the father helped in some way to cover it up, but that's just assumption at this point. There isn't any proof that the van der Sloots did anything, despite the "it's obvious!" argument. If there's no real evidence against them, why are the Holloway's suing? What do they stand to gain from this? Are the courts just going to "laugh" at this?

[lummy 4]

I'm not a lawyer, (but I slept in a Holiday inn last nite ;)

From what I've seen, in a civil case, you only have to show that it is probable they did something wrong. for example, OJ was acquitted in his criminal trial but was successfully sued in the civil trial for the murder of his wife.
I'm presuming the Holloways feel this is their best chance of getting the people responsible for their daughter's disappearance

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[ViperPilot 0]

So they just have to show the van der Sloots probably had something to do w/ it...and that's enough to warrant millions (which is what I'm assuming this lawsuit is going for)? Wow, seems pretty ridiculous. This in no way means I'm supporting the van der Sloots, but just seems pretty crazy people can win money over a mere suspicion. Whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

[unformed 0]

i'm sure one of the lawyers here can explain this better ... but innocent until proven guilty isn't valid for civil cases ... here the defendant has the burden of proof

This ad space for sale.

[Samurai136 0]

The burden of proof is different between civil and criminal cases.

Quote from Wiki:

Balance of probabilities
Also known as "preponderance of the evidence", this is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pension described it simply as "more probable than not".

Beyond a reasonable doubt
This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person (usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable man hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting cases. For example, O.J. Simpson was cleared in a criminal trial of murder, but, in a subsequent civil trial, due to the lower standard of proof, had substantial damages for wrongful death ordered against him.

Clear and convincing evidence
Clear and convincing evidence is the intermediate level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in the US civil procedure. In order to prove something by "Clear and convincing evidence" the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which requires that the trier of fact be all but certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Andy9o8 2]

Sorry, but you’re both operating under incorrect presumptions. You canNOT win money based only on a mere suspicion; and “innocent until proven guilty” does apply in a civil case too, except it’s more properly phrased “the defendant is not liable unless the plaintiff proves him liable.” Also, under Anglo-American law, the initial burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and not on the defendant.

A civil complaint based merely on a suspicion, without at least a recitation of enough actual facts and circumstances rising to some level above a mere suspicion, will be dismissed right out of the gate. If the complaint survives, then during the pre-trial discovery phase, the plaintiff must establish enough evidence to get the case to trial, or the case will be dismissed on a “motion for summary judgment” before it ever gets to trial. And if it gets to trial, the plaintiff still has the initial burden of proof, and if his evidence falls below that burden, the judge will dismiss the case before it ever gets to the jury. If it gets to the jury, the judge will instruct the jury: "It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove his case, and not the defendant’s burden to disprove the accusations against him. If you find that the plaintiff has not proven his case by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant."

The OJ Simpson case cited above is an excellent example of why the Holloways are suing. The burden of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is the highest standard of proof under the law; however, a plaintiff’s burden of proof in a civil case is merely “to a preponderance of the evidence”, which basically means to at least a 51% certainty; and that's an easier burden to prove than in a criminal case. That's why (just like with OJ) you can acquit a person because the evidence leaves you with a reasonable doubt, yet still find him civilly liable, because the same evidence persuades you of his liability by at least a 51% certainty. Moreover, by suing a person, you have the powerful device of being able to use subpoenas to force people to produce documents and other evidence, and to give sworn testimony, and thereby, hopefully, get at more of the facts than a mere "investigation" might reveal.

[warpedskydiver 0]

probably under unlawful detainment/restraint/gangrape etc.

Joran, his father, and the kalpoe's words will be the noose they are hung by

[lawrocket 3]

THere's no real evidence YET. Or, maybe there IS some real evidence.

Look - OJ was found liable for Nicole's death, even though he was found not guilty. Are there reasonable doubts he did it? Yep, which is why he escaped criminally. But civilly, apparently those plaintiffs proved their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hell, sometimes the civil arena can be a good training gournd. Depositions, etc., may be watched closely by criminal authorities. No probable cause to arrest, but enough to take a depo. That information may be enough to provide criminal probable cause.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ViperPilot 0]

All interesting...you learn something every day!

[mikkey 0]

Aruba is Dutch and under Dutch law.... so how does this work with an US civil lawsuit?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[lawrocket 3]

Dutch law might not matter much. OR it may, depending on the law where this place was filed. I personally hate dealign with issues of conflicts of law. I mean, can you imagine the poor judge who would have to decide what law applies in this situation:

"A California resident and his daughter fly from Rome to New York. Over France, they eat some contaminated airline food. Over Britain, they become ill. She dies over international waters. They land in New York, where he is negligently treated by the doctors, resulting in his death. His wife sues the in California."

I mean, what the hell would happen there? I know I wouldn't want to take that case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.