The Hanger – Behind The Scenes of Robbert Van Den Broeke Part III

The clothes hanger, the little boy, “Knaapje, The little boy, noun. Pronunciation: [‘knapjə] Inflections: Boy/s (Multiple) Stack of plastic or wood with a hook to hang clothes in a closet. Synonym: Clothes hanger © Kernerman Dictionaries SpellingCorrect spelled: ‘knaapje’ … Found on http://www.woorden.org/woord/knaapje http://www.encyclo.nl/begrip/knaapje”

Content

The domino that fell
The article by Vincent Verweij
Stan on Aruba?, The Hanger
The “Knaapje” dossier (Dutch only) in Genverbrander Drive
Footnotes

The domino that fell

On June 24, 2017, I published part II and now, not even two months later, part III of “Behind The Screens At Robbert Van Den Broeke”. The reason is simple: there has been a rapid acceleration. Yet again, I will pick up the thread chronologically, not to make this already complex story unnecessarily complicated. So, what happened after June 24, 2017 that part III is already needed again?

After the publication of my part II, the radio silence did not last for a long time. I received mails from Stan Pluijmen and Micha Romijn again. On the side of Stan Pluijmen, first, some weak defense and squirting mails, “Micha Romijn” began again with his split mails about his innocence and being hacked. There was a mail from Stan about Leidy, that was quickly followed by an email that he (Stan ) was hacked again, and so forth, in fact, a repetition. Robbert suddenly suffered from Russian poisoning when I received the following mail on June 29, 2017:

However, in the days before, I had received several photo shops sent to me and made by Stan Pluijmen, including photoshops Stan had done on Fred Melssen and me, both rejuvenated and made old, as well as other photo shops of Jack Spijkerman, Alan Pluijmen (Sieradzki) and himself, so I immediately thought this picture was also fake and came from Stan, not Robbert.

Robbert, meanwhile, on the same day, June 29, 2017, was immersing himself in important life questions (despite his being poisoned) because he asked me in a video clip (Dutch only) (again) why he increasingly looks like a “gore crook”.

But on the same day, June 29, 2017, something else happened, something that added significant momentum to the Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen,  – and I have to add – Joran van der Sloot case. It’s a matter of fact that the Robbert-Stan-Joran’s mysterious triangular relationship began to unravel.

Stan had found me on Skype (not difficult, as I had given my Skype address to “Micha Romijn” in the time that I gave him little benefit of the doubt) and began to talk to me (as always unsolicited) on Skype. By the way, I did not reply here either.

Here are some essential screenshots (click as always for “big”, Dutch only):

I received this file and initially devoted almost no attention to it because it was late in the (California) evening:

Financial sheet of Joran van der Sloot/Leydi Figueroa Uceda that Stan “accidentally” sent me

I did send it to Fred Melssen and Pepijn van Erp immediately and then went to bed.

The next day I received some good feedback from Pepijn and I tweeted the document and then uploaded it in the rather “famous” Genverbrander Drive. Then Pepijn van Erp picked up my tweet immediately and posted this:

Translation: “Money flow from the Netherlands to Joran van der Sloot, especially from people around Robbert van den Broeke. And also of that weird American lady.”

Tweet Pepijn van Erp, June 20, 2017

This financial sheet shows that Leidy Figuerora, Joran van der Sloot’s wife, had received over 200,000 euros in a couple of years, including through the family of Stan Pluijmen’s husband, Alan Sieradzki, and through Robberts and Stans’s friend: Roy Boschmann. Also, Joran van der Sloot’s sugar aunt Mary Hamer was there bringing financial gifts.

I was surprised that Stan sent this, but I thought, once again, that this must be one of his twisted moves and that he had transmitted the file on purpose. However, Stan denied that by mail and by audio.

And per audio (click! Dutch only), as mentioned in the second picture (Dutch).

On July 6, 2017, “Micha Romijn” mailed again and he deemed it necessary to supplement the already idyllic “Micha Romijn” ID gallery with new ID pictures:

He also sent the copy of a Polish ID of one of the Sieradzki’s (one Grazyna Jadwiga Sieradzka) one day later, which I haven’t published. But it is the name that is mentioned in the aforementioned financial sheet.1 I did place it anonymized on Twitter and this time there were no threats of “Micha” that he would report me to the police.

On July 7, 2017, I received via Robben van den Broeke’s mailbox a rather long movie clip in which Joran van der Sloot talks via Skype from his Peru prison with Stan Pluijmen. Not long after, Stan Pluijmen admitted that he had sent it via Robbert’s mailbox.

II published that movie clip on YouTube the same day. (Click! Dutch only)

In this clip Joran van der Sloot drops the word “St. Anna” for the first time. It also becomes apparent, that the clip in a timely manner must have been recorded in 2014, because at that time, Joran’s child “Dushi” was not born yet and in this clip Joran is telling about him becoming a father soon and that Stan Pluijmen will be his child’s godfather (the word seems rather unusual thinking about Stan Pluijmen).

This “St. Anna” as the burial place of Natalee Holloway has been a hot topic for Robbert van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen for a long time. In February / March 2014, Robbert van den Broeke published a clip in which he said that he, through cosmic means, had been given information about the place where Natalee Holloway’s remains could be found. However, he removed this clip shortly thereafter, as I already reported in my Behind The Scenes Of Robbert van den Broeke Part I.

When I tried to find the exact date, I found a mail of mine to Pepijn van Erp:

Translation: “Right, he feels that he soon knows and is allowed to say something more about Natalee Holloway. The cheat, he has already for some time talked to Stan with Joran about it.”

This mail responded to the fact that there was material that Joran had secretly taped in prison, talking about his paranormal experiences with Robbert van den Broeke in Peru’s prison. These fragments appeared on Robberts own site, spread across multiple places, I took the trouble to cut them out and paste them together, see this clip.2

And before that, there was hassling abount paranormal events between Robbert and Joran, and this was found on his own site under the event of “Joran van der Sloot sees apparition of Robbert” in March 2013 .3

Joran’s letter to Robbert van den Broeke, talking about Robbert’s apparition in Peru, March 2013

The clip in which Robbert, dressed in a blue sweater, talks about Natalee Holloway’s location, St. Anna, was in any case from February or March 2014.

The “St. Anna” came back again, namely in Robbert van den Broeke’s and co hate mail: (Dutch)

The article by Vincent Verweij

Back to the present. Well, exactly one day  day later, after I published the Skype conversation from Joran and Stan via Twitter, YouTube and the Genverbrander Drive, on 8 July 2017, an article by Vincent Verweij appeared on crimesite.nl about both the bank statement and the Skype conversation, that he in turn had found in an article by Martijn Mastenbroek who in his turn had found that material via my Twitter account Genverbrander10.

Stan on Aruba?, The Hanger

Looking at this sub header, you may already think, in the atmosphere of Joran van der Sloot, “Stan on Aruba?”, should not that be “Joran on Aruba?”. Here comes a new cat out of the bag. On July 11, 2017, I received from “Micha Romijn” an email that surprised me a lot. If so, all the grub of Robbert and Stan around the burial site of Natalee Holloway suddenly became a lot more comprehensible. They had always claimed Robbert was getting paranormal information about the whereabouts of Natalee Holloway’s remains, and they (now) claimed she could be found at St. Anna Church in Aruba,  in a grave that was double occupied. This “psychic information” suddenly appeared much less paranormal, and on the contrary: quite banal and down-to-earth,  because Stan Pluimen according to “Micha Romijn” was there with Joran van der Sloot, yes, you read that correct, when Natalee Holloway disappeared on May 30, 2005.

The site of Robbert  mentions the fact that Stan met Joran in 2008, and I and others also never questioned it (a good lesson, though, not to accept everything without evidence). “Micha” suddenly sent these mails:

Translation:

https://youtu.be/o3cI_tA0fJA

He is a victim of Stan.”

“He was involved with Joran, and friend of Stan and Joran in the time Nathalee disappeared. He lost his mind over this tragedy. Stan was also on Aruba with Joran and accomplice. Robbert knows that secret. Stan knows where Nathalee is because he was there.”

The “Micha Romijn” person also , I myself had traced back to Stan Pluijmen, as being one and the same.4

But why would Stan Pluijmen scatter this (false) information around about himself? Stan Pluijmen had said to me in a few mails that he had a secret that he wanted to share with me, but he could not, because I would misinterpret it and certainly would share it with the world (the latter is correct ). I never guessed what it was, but suddenly something started to dawn on me. Was this Stan Pluijmen’s secret: that he did not meet Joran in 2008, but before and maybe even in 2005? Stan was born on January 16, 1989, which meant he was 16 plus a little something years old, only 1.5-year-2 plus years younger than Joran van der Sloot (August 6, 1987) and Natalee Holloway (October 21, 1986), who on the fatal day of Natalees disappearance, May 30, 2005, were 18 and 17 respectively.

We must also keep in mind that just before Joran van der Sloot committed the murder on Stephany Flores, he spoke extensively with Stan Pluijmen.

And why had Stan been so busy with Robbert for so many years, “helping him with scientific research”, the many tricks they probably produced  and launched together? Why did those two keep me sending mails, clips, pictures and audio files? It seemed a mystery.

In addition, Roy Boschman, who used to belong to Robbert’s intimi, eventually dropped out of the group, because through the medium of Vincent’s article he suddenly was airing the dirty laundry about Stan Pluijmen, and the breakup between him and Robbert and Stan seemed to be complete. A breakup was already reported on Robbert van den Broeke’s Facebook page, but this post was later removed. I did save screenshots back then.5

Now, Stan’s motivation – as far as Robbert van den Broeke was concerned, seemed a lot less “spiritual”, and a whole lot more earthly motivated. It was a double-edged sword: Robbert van den Broeke would become world famous because he had succeeded as a paranormal medium to point out Natalee Holloway’s remains, and Stan Pluijmen could finally “legitimately” get rid of his Joran van der Sloot secret.

Joran had become a nasty piece of work, who practiced his power over Stan from prison and wanted to see money on a monthly basis because he knew (knows) things about Stan. What kind of things specifically, that is not clear yet.

However, when Joran apparently did not receive enough money from Stan, he sent a letter in 2015 in which he threatened to drop bombs on Stan and Robbert.

What these “bombs” consisted of was a big riddle for everyone, but I think the fog is now lifting. Stan Pluijmen wanted to use the “medium” Robbert as a hanger to hang his secret, namely that he knows what happened to Natalee Holloway and where her last earthly remains are. Robbert could prove this as a phenomenal visionary to the world.

This given was reinforced by the mail of “Micha Romijn” and on 14 July 2017, also by an audio file of Stan Pluijmen.

Against my usual self, I did not post the shocking mail by “Micha Romijn” about Stan as an accomplice to Joran on Aruba  on Twitter, but I tried to contact Dutch media and the FBI. I did speak to the Sacramento FBI (by phone) and emailed them too, but (of course), heard nothing about that anymore. I was planning to tell nobody, because I didn’t know what the consequences could be, but a couple of days later, I told a small group of people, that committed to discretion about it, anyway.

But I felt this needed to be sorted out first, away from the “normal” public eye. This apparently disappointed Stan Pluijmen, because he started to send me more audios about him on Aruba, and one in which he suddenly said that he had spoken to Micha Romijn (yes, yes, the one who had hacked him and Robbert) and that he thought he knew what “Micha Romijn” had said to me: that “Micha” had said he was there with Joran van der  Sloot,  when Natalee Holloway disappeared. However, in this audio file, he moved on quickly to another subject, to sow his usual confusion and to rejuvenate the usual smoke curtains. Stan also used a bait story about Roy Boschman, I think he expected me to publish this audio right away. However, I released the audio about Roy Boschman a while later, cut out of Stans Aruba’s story, still, which did not yield me a foul response from Stan Pluijmen, but from Robbert van den Broeke. Part I, Part II, Part III  (Dutch only)

When I received mails from “Micha” / Stan about Stan on Aruba, I had this insight: “Do not publish now”. And I thought: hey, but why not? And a little later, I thought why, because I would only play Stan into the hands. He apparently wanted me to publish this, that he had been to Aruba (with Joran). And why would he want that? To blow away the smoke coming from his gun? To deprive Joran of his power over him? To sow great consternation and make everyone crazy? The latter seems plausible at this time. Stan Pluijmen as the “Master Cheat and Mind Manipulator”. Stan Pluijmen, the mentalist junkie.

I myself had called upon Joran van der Sloot on Twitter, following all recent events, that he had to come up with a statement about Stan Pluijmen now, that the tide was high. Probably, I’d stepped on Stan Pluijmen’s toes with this, even without having noticed myself doing so:

Stan was under great pressure and now wanted everybody interested in this case to consider the idea that he had been on Aruba. Why, I do not  know, but I know that he is trying to use me as a mouthpiece, to put Joran van der Sloot under a lot of pressure. Also later, more Stan Pluijmen’s audios followed about Joran van der Sloot, “Micha Romijn” and him (whether or not) on Aruba, but I did not publish them anymore, because it was now clear to me that Stan Pluijmen was trying to abuse me for his great misdemeanor plan, perhaps to put Joran van der Sloot out of his mind and put him completely out of control.

Also on 27 and 28 July 2017, I received two more emails now, really true !, really of the true “Micha Romijn”, under the name “Neo the One”,  and  – oh big surprise – he too asked me to remove his “ID pictures” from the internet..

However, it seems to me quite plausible that Stan Pluijmen hoped that, through “medium” Robbert, an eye-catching discovery about Natalee Holloway could be launched into the world, and he could use Robbert van den Broeke as a hanger “boy” in his very doubtful dark world.

Even Stan Pluijmen himself finds his own truth incredibly complicated, just listen (Dutch only).

The role of Bjorn mentioned by “Micha Romijn” must also be investigated.

At the end of July 2017, Stan Pluijmen managed to complicate the matter further by poking someone with whom I collaborated privately, and that person couldn’t resist. I won’t go into details with that. Again, (being not the first time) I was sick and tired of the whole thing and I and locked my Twitter account Genverbrander10. However, in August 2017, again, mails of Stan Pluijmen started to come in. But again in the same line: again on relationships between Joran van der Sloot and himself and him on Aruba. To be continued.

The “Knaapje” dossier (Dutch only, click!) in Genverbrander Drive

Het “Knaapje”dossier (Dutch only) in Genverbrander Drive, specific mails Stan Pluijmen sent about him on Aruba (with Joran).

*** Startfile of manipulating Stan Pluijmen audio files (or via Knaapje Dossier) (Dutch only) ***

*** On August 19, 2017, the American Broadcasting Oxygen will launch a series about the search of Natalee Holloway’s father for Natalee’s remains. It is possible Stan Pluijmen will also be mentioned, whether or not by name. ***

Footnotes

[1] In addition, the Polish surnames of women end up in an A instead of an I, but it still concerns “The Sieradzki’s”.

[2] A Spanish-speaking channel also picked up this and published under the title: “Asesino Joran Van Der Sloot Dice Tener experiencia Paranormal” (“Murderer Joran van der Sloot claims to have paranormal experience”) in February 2014.

[3] For example, this can also be found on Omroep Brabant (October 2013).

[4] I already substantiated that in Part II. There were more hard and soft clues (than already discussed). For example, “Micha Romijn” once sent a screenshot picture and it appeared to have been shot by exactly the same iPhone  as a shot by Stan Pluijmen of Alan (very high probability: unique ICC identifier, for the used device:e5bb0e9867bd46cd4bbe446ebd1b7598). A “soft clue” may be considered the identical language of “Micha” and Stan, the writing of “Nathalee” is one example, something Gisela noticed.

[5] Screenshots Robbert van den Broeke about his breakup with Roy Boschman:

This time I want especially to thank Sjaan.
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Hanger – Behind The Scenes of Robbert Van Den Broeke Part III”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s