Joran Van Der Sloot to be RELEASED Saturday!!!!

[Terrell]

I thought some of the thiings said about Joran Van Der Sloot were over the line, given the lack of evidence to back them up. The main thing was when Natalee's mother called him a "sexual predator". Last I checked trying to pick up women in a bar is normal behaviour for a heterosexual male. I think this term gets thrown around too much, at least Dan Abrams from the Abrams Report was willing to question calling Van Der Sloot a predator. Unless he is proven guilty of rape or a crime of a similiar sexual nature the term "sexual predator" doesn't apply.

They have three local Aruban women who attest that Joran sexually assaulted them...ages 18 and 16. The youngest claims to have been drugged. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this suspect should never have been allowed to leave confinement.

As to Natalee? I still think that the many bordellos in the area should be checked, both on the mainland and the outlying islands...this can be done by "patrons" who are actually undercover officers.

White slavery is a going business in the Dutch protectorates and on the mainland; yes, it would be easy enough to keep a girl drugged, thus dependent...change her hairstyle and color and "paint her up", but a good investigator could "make" her.

These claims that he's assulted other women should be investigated, however, they have yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, so until those are proven to that standard, they are just accusations. If there is any merit to these allegations where are the indictments? How do we know that those aren't people who have sympathy for Natalee and her mother (ever watched an episode of Law & Order SVU where people make false allegations against suspects just because they think they're helping society? That does go on in real life sometimes) and want to help her. If you want me to believe the other allegations, prove them, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Checking the bordellos is a pretty reasonable course of action to take, maybe they'll get lucky. It may turn out that Joran didn't do what he's suspected of. Same applies to white slavery being Natalee is young, blonde, white, and pretty, in addition to being female.

[streetsoldier]

And if the allegations develop into formal charges, all Joran has to do is drive 30 minutes into Germany, Liechtenstein, or Belgium, then disappear.

Again, I mentioned the "white slavery" angle because of the case of Amy Bradley, who disappeared in 1999, only to be seen in a Curacao bordello nine months later...and she was far from "blonde and pretty". Amy has not been seen since then, and she isn't the only American girl to vanish off the face of the earth during a vacation in the Dutch protectorates.

[Terrell]

If the allegations that are made have sufficent evidence to at least sustain an indictment then they can arrest him again. You'd think that the Dutch have extradition treaties with other countries they should use them if needed. I'm however opposed to detaining someone indefinitely without charges, and that was going on in Aruba until he was released. That has way too much potiental to be abused.

On the blonde and pretty thing I was thinking that she'd be a more desiriable target than a less attractive woman. That doesn't mean that a less attractive woman wouldn't be a victim of the same crime.

[streetsoldier]

One other thing...note that Joran's father, judge-in-training "If there's no body, there's no case" Paulus van der Sloot just landed in Amsterdam WITH the suspect-in-question.

If this doesn't raise a few eyebrows, if not legal queries, it should.

[Terrell]

It definitely raises eyebrows and questions, but I want to see some hard evidence showing a specific crime has been committed against Natalee. (it's likely that she has been a victim of crime but it hasn't been proven)

I would also want to see some hard evidence that proves that Joran Van Der Sloot actually did this crime. Remember there is a difference between what we suspect or believe and what we can prove. What we can Prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for imprisioning the suspect on a more permanent basis. Prove to me he's a rapist and I'll support Life without parole, but I want to see proof beyond a reasonable doubt first.

I stand by my comment that Natalee's mother was over the line when she called Van der Sloot a sexual predator without proof that he has actually sexually victimized someone.

[streetsoldier]

Then, you may wish to take Joran's original statement into account; he told Aruban police that he repeatedly "had sex" with Ms. Holloway, while she "drifted in and out of consciousness" in his home (!)...then "something terrible happened to her"(?).

This was translated into English for the Holloway family (along with all of the other statements from van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers), and Natalee's mother spoke of it just last night on FoxNews' "After Hours".

Yet, the Dutch/Aruban justice system didn't think this was "compelling" enough to bind Joran over for trial?

[Terrell]

I haven't seen this statement on TV, if it really does exist where are the indictments on this? If he did confess to raping Natalee why hasn't he been indicted? You want to hold him in prison bring an indictment and prove your case in court, unless and until you have an indictment (at the very least) you have to let him go. Prove that he raped natalee and I would support locking him up for life. Problem is that this has yet to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, do this and I can support keeping Joran in prison, but until this is done, I cannot.

[streetsoldier]

Terrell,

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a former cop; given all that we've seen and learned about this case (and if I were a part of the investigation), I'd be shadowing Joran 24/7...never approaching him, or saying anything to him, mind. Just making sure he could see me watching one minute, gone the next.

I believe he's as dirty as they come, and I'd use any means within the law to make him sweat it out, look over his shoulder, make a mistake...then take him down.

And, he'd MAKE that mistake...I'm 100% on that.

[Terrell]

Terrell,

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of a former cop; given all that we've seen and learned about this case (and if I were a part of the investigation), I'd be shadowing Joran 24/7...never approaching him, or saying anything to him, mind. Just making sure he could see me watching one minute, gone the next.

I believe he's as dirty as they come, and I'd use any means within the law to make him sweat it out, look over his shoulder, make a mistake...then take him down.

And, he'd MAKE that mistake...I'm 100% on that.

Shadowing or investigating him is a legitimate tactic, I don't have a problem with that. But until you have the goods to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, keeping him in jail indefinitely is wrong. Guilt must be PROVEN BEFORE long term imprisonment, regardless of how people feel about a specific suspect.

[streetsoldier]

Of course, I'd want him to focus on ME...unaware of the team of nondescript men and women who'd follow him in a "rolling tail" whenever he'd see me.

As to getting hard evidence...the Arubans blew that when they released Joran and the Kalpoes the first time (giving them plenty of time to remove evidence..esp. in Joran's home where he said that he'd had Natalee later, after his second detainment!...get their stories straight, listen to Paulus' legal counsel, etc.).

To me, (a) there's no doubt that a crime was committed against Natalee Holloway, (b) that van der Sloot and the Kalpoes are and were knee-deep in it, with Joran's father as an accessory after the fact, and (c) that if it had happened here, those people would long since have been charged and held over for trial.

[Terrell]

That assumes that our authorites could find the evidence. Maybe they didn't do it the way our police would have, and our police probably would have done a better job, given our murder and violent crime rate our police have more experience. Aruba, however is not in the United States' jurisdiction, allowing our law enforcement to help out in the investigation is a matter of courtesy (and politics) should you find evidence to convict them then take them to court and do so, until then they are presumed innocent.

As to telling his son that without a body there's no case, in and of itself, doesn't make Joran's father an accessory after the fact. For that to be the case he would have had to tell him to dispose of the body (no it doesn't count if the body had already been disposed of prior to his comment, assuming that there is a body to be found in the first place), or help him in the disposal of the body. If neither condition is met then it's just good legal advice, kinda like telling a suspect to refuse to talk to the police. (not talking to the police is good advice even if you're innocent)

[streetsoldier]

"As to telling his son that without a body there's no case, in and of itself, doesn't make Joran's father an accessory after the fact."

It does raise the question as to why a body was mentioned at all...unless there WAS one?

[gtalum]

It does raise the question as to why a body was mentioned at all...unless there WAS one?

Not necessarily. The kid is probably scared to death of this witchhunt, and was afraid he might be convicted even if he's innocent. His dad probably said that to comfor him. "Look kid, you didn't do anything, and withjotu a body there's no case".

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

[nholley]

It does raise the question as to why a body was mentioned at all...unless there WAS one?

I think the body was mentioned because of the implication from various places that she was dead. Lets face it, she is dead and we will probably never know what happened. The Dutch authorities were very accomadating in allowing US observers in to see what was going on. They even sent extra military manpower over to assist in the search. Would the US do the same for
another country?