in Voorpagina

Joran van der Sloot to remain free

Joran van der Sloot, the alleged ‘killer’ of Natalee Holloway, is going to remain a free man. Any Dutch lawyer will destroy the ‘case’ any prosecutor will try to bring to a court following the TV-show of Dutch crime reporter Peter R. de Vries.

First, there’s still no body.

Second, while making his repeated ‘confessions’ in a car and under constant secret camera surveillance (which is already problematic under Dutch law – will a court accept the video?), Mr. Van der Sloot was constantly smoking weed. Any lawyer worth his salt will argue that Mr. Van der Sloot was under the influence of drugs at the time of his ‘ ‘confession sessions’ and that he therefore cannot be held accountable for his actions or words. Van der Sloot already went on live television two days before the show in which his ‘confessions’ were aired to state that what he said wasn’t the truth; that he was exaggerating, and that the stories he told were made up.

Third, there is no independent source or witness to back up Joran’s ‘confession’. Van der Sloot says that he had Natalee Holloway disposed of by a friend, a fisherman, who took the lifeless body of the girl to sea after she died. However, at no time during his show does Mr. De Vries produce this ‘friend’, named ‘Daury’ by Van der Sloot. This raises questions. Does this man exist? If so, why didn’t De Vries find him? Or perhaps he didn’t exist, which should work out fine for Mr. Van der Sloot’s lawyer. His argument, that Joran was spaced-out on dope and talking crap every time he was smoking weed in the car, will only gain more traction if this ‘Daury’ doesn’t show up to back up Joran’s ‘confession’.

Fourth, even if Joran’s confession is accepted by the court, then the court will still have to take his word for it that she was already dead before he / his (imaginary?) friend let her slip into the sea. All that he can then be accused of is gross neglicence and letting disappear a dead body (under Dutch law). And not even that; he would be an accomplice, as he got aided by someone else. (If this is true, of course.) If a court accepts his confessions (remember the drugs-argument!) about what happened, then it will also have to accept his argument that she died in his arms – but that he did not intentionally kill her.

As for the man’s personality: yes, he certainly needs to visit a shrink or two, and that for a long, looong time. But a court still will not look at his personality, but at the mere facts.