NO REARREST FOR JORAN: HOW DO YOU
EXPLAIN THAT TO HER RELATIVES.....?

Joran van der Sloot will not be rearrested for his role in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, according to a decision handed down by the Court on Aruba last night. This is not altogether surprising, considering an earlier pronouncement by the examining judge that the case is now technically ‘on appeal’, but it is difficult to explain. The main problem is that Dutch law does not provide for detention on remand for disposing of a body. It is indeed an offence which carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, but one can’t be kept in custody pending such a sentence.

- INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND INCONCEIVABLE -

If, during the drives, Joran had admitted to doing something to Natalee, this would imply a different – more serious – offence, which would indeed have allowed for detention on remand.

However legally correct this may be, this approach remains incomprehensible and inconceivable to Natalee’s relatives. During five separate drives, Joran admitted to being present when Natalie died, that he didn’t go for help but rather had her body dumped in the ocean so that the police and her relatives could never find out what happened. As soon as the detectives’ investigations showed that he certainly must have been involved in the disappearance however, he chose to lie to the world in a despicable manner about his actions and movements on the night concerned.

- REWARD FOR SABOTAGING INVESTIGATION -

It is a bitter pill to swallow – one that I have also come across in other cases – where a suspect has disposed of a body and managed to get off scot-free. Why does one dispose of the body? It is almost invariably to prevent the police from establishing exactly what happened to the person, usually because an offence has been committed. Also, for intentionally sabotaging the resulting investigation, one isn’t punished but rather rewarded because one cannot be arrested. What is just is not always fair. I will try to explain the logic of this to Beth Holloway, Natalee’s mother, but I doubt I will succeed.

In addition, the Court on Aruba stated that it’s ‘impression’ that Joran is a systematic liar further underpinned its decision. Usually, the fact that someone tells a pack of lies in a case concerning life and death should be a valid reason on its own to arrest the suspect, if only for the opportunity to get to the bottom of the matter.

- ADMISSION WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE? -

One of the things that Joran is certainly lying about is that his admissions in the car were made under the influence of marijuana. I must reiterate that Joran constantly admitted his role during five separate drives. During some of them, he did indeed smoke a joint, as is his habit. However, the TV footage shows clearly that during some of the drives he did NOT smoke, or did so only AFTER Natalee’s case was discussed. And never for a single moment did Joran say anything during a subsequent drive to intimate that last time, he had been stoned and had sprouted a lot of hot air. On the contrary. Each time, Joran reconfirmed his involvement in the disappearance, augmenting his confessions with new details. And during this frequently repeated account while ‘under the influence’, he also provided precise responses to the unanswered questions that police and justice still have in this case.

Moreover, anyone who has ever smoked marijuana knows that it effect does not prompt you to admit to unsolved crimes. Where that is the case, police stations in the Netherlands and elsewhere would be overflowing.

- INVESTIGATION CONTINUES-

For all clarity, the fact that Van der Sloot has not been taken into custody on remand does not mean that the judicial investigation against him has come to an end. Far from it. The Public Prosecutor is working hard on the case in which Joran van der Sloot is still prime suspect.

Peter R. de Vries

Translation: Andrew M. Bergman