Amigoe; February 2, 2006: Paul van der Sloot claims damages
Weren’t there others that were wrongfully arrested in part due to statements and comments given by those that would benefit from Paul Van der Sloot’s claim? Many wonder what ever became of the two security guards and why they are still considered suspects. Interesting how Paulus gets his claims heard but why is it not the same for the first individuals that were arrested in the Natalee Holloway disappearance?
ARUBA Ã¢â‚¬” Paul van der Sloot claims damages from the National Government of Aruba, because he was wrongfully arrested and detained in the Holloway-case. The case was handled behind closed doors by the court sitting in chambers last Monday. The judge will continue the case at the end of this month.
Van der Sloot indicated in a telephone conversation with the Amigoe that he doesn’t want to tell the size of the amount he is claiming. He did say though that during the hearing, the chief public prosecutor Karin Janssen substantiated the Public Prosecutor’s (OM) opinion on the claim, but he didn’t go into details. The OM didn’t want to give any comments. Van der Sloot emphasized that having been wrongfully arrested, is not under discussion. “The Judge had already decided that this was the case”, and based on that he thinks that he can claim damages. During the hearing in the Judge’s chambers, Van der Sloot’s lawyer Arie Swaen indicated that his client’s social position and career were damaged due to negative publicity his family had to deal with during the Holloway-case. Question is whether his case is built strong enough. Luis de Lannooy, presiding judge of the common Court of Justice where Van der Sloot was working as substitute judge, mentioned before Van der Sloot was arrested that his work was not satisfactory and that his contract would definitely not be extended. In addition, the publicity had to do with his son and his wife Anita had consciously sought publicity a few times. The judge heard the lawyer as well as the OM and said that he will look into the information. The parties will meet again on February 27th. It is not sure yet whether the judge will give verdict on that day. “It can be that the judge comes with another proposal. We’ll wait and see”, said Van der Sloot.