More Natalee Holloway case Analysis; “van der Sloot’s position can be summed in two words. Prove it.”
Sometimes just because one cannot prove a crime does not mean authorities do not pretty much know who was responsible and the main suspects. Thus follows the analysis of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.
I guess you could say the Aruban authorities, together with Natalee’s loved ones, too, have a hunch.
They may not know how, why or what happened to Natalee Holloway, but to them, one thing is certain: Joran van der Sloot does know.
But van der Sloot’s position can be summed in two words. Prove it.
The problem with perception of this investigation is not that there was no evidence to link the crime to the three main suspects, Joran Van der Sloot, Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. The problem is that the investigation was so botched from the beginning to the point where it looks like to many that investigators gave preferential treatment and just looked the other way.
Further thought goes into Joran doing the ABC Prime Time interview, which across the board all believe was a colossal mistake.
Why did Joran talk – when it was so risky to do so? I think there are two possibilities.
One is that he’s guilty, but confident that Natalee’s body will never be found – because he hid it well, and because despite many searches, it hasn’t been found so far.
The other is that Joran is just as innocent as he professes – and that he did indeed leave Natalee alone on the beach where she, perhaps, fell prey to a stranger’s opportunistic rape, a crime that ended in murder. Perhaps the real culprit was someone with a boat; perhaps Natalee’s body was cast into the sea, much too far out to wash up on the shore.
(Read the full story at Find Law.com
Posted February 27, 2006 by Scared Monkeys
Aruba, boycott, Joran Van der Sloot, Natalee Holloway | no comments
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Leave a Reply