From todays Diario, December 4, 2006: Documentonan policial ta mustra; ABOGADO DI JORAN VAN DER SLOOT a PIDI JORAN ‘CASI NA YORAMENTO’ PA BISA E BERDAD (Translation to follow)
Police reports show: Joran van der Sloot’s lawyer asked Joran “almost in tears” to tell the truth
ORANJESTAD (AAN): Recently an investigative reporter in Holland made some revelations in Natalee Hollaway’s case during a special program on television, in which reportedly Joran van der Sloot’s lawyer spoke with Prosecutor Janssen and gave the prosecutor indications that Joran van der Sloot knows much more about Natalee’s case.
This show has made a huge impact in Holland, United States, Antilles and Aruba, because no one was aware of the alleged non formal conversation between van der Sloot’s lawyer and the main prosecutor Janssen, to indicate to the prosecutor that Joran knows much more than he has declared to authorities.
Van der Sloot’s lawyer in Aruba, Mr. Carlo has denied that he had any non official conversation with prosecutor Janssen, and that his client knows more than what he declared to the police.
DIARIO’s investigative team published some parts of the police report made by a Dutch police officer during the investigation, which was an interrogation between the officer and van der Sloot:
“The suspect (Joran van der Sloot) said, as I (“I” is the Dutch officer) heard, that he (van der Sloot) asked his mother to contact by phone his witness Zedan Arambatzis, to find out what he told the police”.
“The suspect said that his lawyer Carlo, in confidence, also heard the declaration of Zedan Arambatzis and that the next day, the lawyer asked Joran van der Sloot, “almost in tears” to tell the truth.”
“The suspect said that his lawyer Carlo informed him (van der Sloot) that the witness Zedan Arambatzis told about the Fishermans hut”.
“Van der Sloot declared that based on this information, he decided to tell the truth, which was that he left Natalee alone at the Fishermans hut”.
Analyzing what was reported during the interrogation made by a special team of Dutch police officers, who were in Aruba specially to help solve the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, any investigator would remark and ask the following questions:
1. Why did van der Sloot ask his mother to call Zedan Arambatzis to ask the witness what he told the police;
2. What did Zedan tell van der Sloot’s mother?
3. Was van der Sloot’s mother interrogated based on this information, which the police put on paper?
4. On which date, Joran asked his mother to go find out what Zedan Arambatzis told the police and when did the mother call the witness, and what did this witness declare to Joran’s mother, and who in turn told her son what the witness declared;
5. Why would the lawyer ask the suspect Joran, “almost in tears” to tell the truth?
6. What is the “truth” that is being mentioned in this case?
7. And about the supposedly “truth” that Joran himself told later that he left Natalee at the Fishermanshut;
8. If that was true, then there was no wrong doing or something so extraordinary that the lawyer, supposedly asked van der Sloot “almost in tears” to tell the truth!
9. Regarding what the lawyer heard about the declarations of Zedan in confidence, it is open to ask; where did he hear this story ‘in confidence’ and who else knows about this; and how can a lawyer be told about this ‘in confidence’ with Joran being his client and how much more information ‘in confidence’ was kept a secret and to this day Aruba’s people still pay for something that they played no part in?
These are just some observations in the most controversial case that Aruba and the Dutch Kingdom has ever encountered, but slowly has been coming together.