Just posted by Victor (Lazlo) at Scrux:Not even a month ago the OM in Aruba "closed" the Natalee Holloway case.
The American student has been missing since May 2005.
Joran van der Sloot has been a prime suspect in this case together with two of his friends.
The decision to make it a sepot was followed due to a lack of new concrete evidence, according to head officer Hans Mos during a press conference.
(clip of Hans Mos) "That fact and the fact that the all three decided to take their right to remain silent during their detention that together has brought us to the conclusion that there simply was not enough juridical evidence to charge and prosecute them".
-end of clip-
Joran van der Sloot has been the prime suspect since 2005 in the Holloway case, he after all was the one that saw her last, and gave statements that were untrue. Later Joran admitted that he had lied.
In November he was arrested again. During his detention that lasted for two weeks Joran again took his right to remain silent.
Last night, Joran together with his parents Joran one more time gave an interview to Pauw and Witteman. At the table also crime reporter Peter de Vries, who has never made it a secret to doubt Joran's statements.
When the broadcasting had ended, the following happened:
-clip of Joran throwing wine in de Vries's face is shown-
De Vries: I think he proved himself a bad service,
Witteman: This incident is not going to contribute to him gaining any much trust.
-clip-
de Vries asking: "Tell me now how did you got home that night".
Joran: I was brought home by D.. Satish the brother of Deepak
"de Vries: But he denies that, he says I did not bring him home at all.
Joran: Yes
de Vries: and first you have stated that Deepak have brought you home, not Satish
Joran: Mr de Vries, I don't know if you...
de Vries: Why would they lie about that?
-end of clip-
Peter Plasman: I found the performance of the family van der Sloot really dramatic (as in not good).
Intervieuwer: Why?
Plasman: Because these people with this story can never win over the battle of the public opinion.
Joran van der Sloot yesterday had come with his parents to the talkshow P&W now that he is not going to be prosecuted about Natalee Holloway, right after the program things get out of hand.
-clip- :
Joran: If there ever will be clearity about what happened, and it turns out you are wrong, will you apologize, are you man enough to do that?
De Vries: What do you think?
Joran: No.
De Vries: No?
Joran nods his head that no he thinks no.
Anita starts to laugh real hard, audience is mumbling.
The interviewer then says: What a beautiful ending of such a ...!
Anita van der Sloot: Nice ending (laughing)
-end of clip-
Witteman: Everybody was shaking hands, any way, Jeroen and I were shaking hands with all our guests, and Joran stood up and I got the impression that Joran was going to shake hands with Peter.
Peter de Vries: After the broadcasting, my sender was taken of and I arrange my clothes, I was looking down, at that moment Joran had stood up and I myself had not seen that, and shortly thereafter I got an amount of wine in my face that he had thrown.
There was a full glass of wine on the table, and he had grabbed that and threw it in my face. And because I did not see that coming I got the wine in my eyes, and of course because there was alcohol in it, that itched.
-clip-
De Vries is standing with his hands for his eyes, his wife next to him and Jeroen Pauw says he should use some water for his eyes.
Anita with a sad voice: Why do you do that now, come on now, ohhh!
Wife of de Vries towards Anita: Now you have done such a great job raising that, yes, very well raised indeed.
-end of clip-
Witteman: After the broadcasting he said he was so agitated during the broadcasting because he had to explain why he had lied again and again, and he had then felt he could do this, now I have the chance, and then he did this.
de Vries: He did this out of a form of frustration, agitation. I have later talked with him, and he then apologized, and he then said that already during the broadcasting he had wanted to insult me, but that during the broadcasting he had been able to held back, but then then at the end, it came out of him, and before he knew/realised it himself he had thrown wine in my face.
-clip-
May 2005, the American Natalee Holloway is with her class on Aruba vacationing, after a night of going out she takes of with some guys, they end up at the beach, in the end she is together with Joran van der Sloot, but ever since there is no trace of Natalee.
Joran van der Sloot is a suspect and is interrogated over and over again, but last month the Aruban judge let go of the case.
-end of clip-
In the interview last night he was attacked because in the case he had taken his right to remain silent.
-clip-
de Vries: The fact that also now, the last time he was arrested he refused to answer any single question during all that time, I find that very strange, and I wonder if this is something his father agrees with, as being a man who attempted to become a judge himself. That your son, In such a crucial case in which a girl has went missing, in which the mother is desperate about the faith of her daughter, that you then keep your mouth shut, while the goal of the investigation is to obtain clearity.
-end of clip-
Interviewer: Why is it a good idea at times to take your right to remain silent?
Peter Plasman: Because if you know the prosecution does not have enough against me and you then remain silent, then there cannot come anything upon that, at least not from me. If justice does not have enough and you are questioned and give answers, you take the risk of making mistakes -regardless if you are innocent or guilty, also innocent people make mistakes- that can be interpreted wrongly, and look we now have contradicting statements, and additional incriminating material.
-clip-
Joran: And I have told everything, and I also feel, why would have have to give the police 20 statements, the only thing they want is to find differences in that.
-end of clip-
Interviewer: To take your right to remain silent in many cases is a normal strategy.
De Vries: Well I do not feel this a normal strategy, we are here not dealing with a career criminal of a drugs case, these usually standardly get the advise of their lawyers to take their right to remain silent.
We are here dealing with a guy who last saw a girl, so please give me one reason why you would not tell your story.
-clip-
Joran: I no longer have faith in the OM in Aruba, they are not after truthfinding in this case, they just want to hang someone. Just for their own ego's.
Witteman: Also when the person is innocent?
Joran: Yes also when the person is innocent I am convinced of that.
de Vries: I find it kind of strange you say that you have no trust in the OM, while you are the one who have continued to lie.
Joran: Yes I have lied, I admit that, but there are reasons for that, and those reasons you know also.
de Vries: I would like to know these reasons, to lie about something you did, while you have nothing to hide. Why would you have to lie then, please explain.
-end of clip-
Plasman: This could not go right. The questions of Peter de Vries could have been predicted in advance, it were very legitimate questions. Questions like, why remain silent if you have nothing to hide, you cannot explain that yourself, if you want to explain that you will have to let a professional do that.
Plus all the inside information that was given, especially by the father, I found the role of father especially saddening (as in worse of all) .Well, they just never should have done this (going on the show).
-clip-
Anita: Now I am his mother, I love him very much, I am convinced he would not harm a girl.
These initial emotions for me are also important to notice at him, because I did actually had doubts about him for a while.
I have thought, damn, could an accident have happened, could something have happened, does he not want to tell?
-end of clip-
Plasman: If you go to a television broadcasting, and you know in advance that the mother is going to say that she has doubted her son, then that in itself is a reason not to go.
Interviewer: So this is not so smart
Plasman: No no no
Plasman: Especially the father should have known what questions would come up, and how the mother would react upon the questions. And if he knows that if there is going to be a question did you ever doubt him and that she is going to answer yes, he should have decided not to go there.
-clip-
Witteman: You were a stand in judge
Paulus: Yes
Witteman: Imagine Joran had told you, dad I did something terrible, what would you have done?
Paulus: I would have gone with him to him to the OM.
Witteman: Did you had a talk about this?
Anita: Between us as parents? Yes, yes.
Witteman: And you agreed with that?
Anita: Yes I agreed with that fully.
Witteman: You would then have brought in your own son?
Anita: Yes
Joran: And I can confirm that also.
-end of clip-
Plasman: What I found dramatically to hear from the parents was that they said, if he had told them he had something to do with it, that they would have gone to the police, since that means as parents you are cutting of your role as a parent to your son, you then know going to your parents with your problems, asking advise, telling what happened means jail, the parents taking over the role of police officers, incredible for parents.
clip-
-Wine incident is shown again-
de Vries: I can imagine it in many ways and do not make a big deal out of this. I mean if this is the worse you have to meet in your career as a crime reporter, then I have no reason to complain.
Witteman: By a larger public I think he has become more solid in the chair of a supsect, but we will have to wait for the body of Natalee Holloway to know what really has happened.
http://www.novatv.nl/novaplayer/player169.html?bw=bb&player=wmp&id=hpe-1-0&x=11&y=6#
