Scared Monkeys Radio Daily Commentary – Tuesday, November 27, 2007 – Aruban Prosecutors Refraining From Discussing New Evidence In The Natalee Holloway Case With The Press

• Dana discusses what we know about the new evidence in the Natalee Holloway case which led to the re-arrest of three suspects, Joran van Der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe.

Download and Comment at ScaredMonkeysRadio.Com

2 Responses to “Scared Monkeys Radio Daily Commentary – Tuesday, November 27, 2007 – Aruban Prosecutors Refraining From Discussing New Evidence In The Natalee Holloway Case With The Press”

1. LilPuma on November 27th, 2007 5:55 pm

   I completely agree. Especially since I’m running out of barf bags with Joe Tacopina and Rosemarie Arnold making so many TV appearances. Who’s paying for those many hours they’re putting into this media blitz proclaiming Joran’s innocence? Defense attorneys and PR attorneys are saying what they’re supposed to say on behalf of their clients. The Prosecutor, who is showing professionalism and class, is not hiding or running from the media. He tells them he can’t say much but also says they have found old info that was not analyzed properly and they have new evidence. David Kock also told Greta that the Prosecutor may not have put forth all he has at this point. More rumors and speculation and the same old thing from the media, bloggers and posters. Note to the former detective on Greta over the weekend: Arubans don’t celebrate Thanksgiving.

2. LilPuma on November 27th, 2007 8:50 pm

   I copied this from the Fox News website. It’s a portion of the transcript of Greta’s interview with Hans Mos last night, which is linked in the entry above. I thought it worthwhile to copy the words below because (1) Mos says they have evidence they did not have before. (2) He explains the 2-year deal, which we can’t seem to comprehend, especially our media and their panelists. Feel free to return and re-read after listening to media reports.
   ____________________

   MOS: New evidence is evidence that we didn’t have before. As simple as that.

   VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And does it have to be of a compelling nature? Or can — I mean, does it have to be — is it sort of damning evidence, like, evidence that would make a prosecutor think, Oh, my God, you know, now I know — now I’ve got the goods?

   MOS: Depends on the case and depends how far you came in the past. You know that the evidence in murder cases could hang up to just one hair of a suspect. And that is just a very small piece of evidence, but it’s very important. And what we gave to the judge is evidence, and it was enough to arrest these guys again after two years, after they had been freed by the court in Curacao. So the judge weighed this evidence. And of course, when you arrest a person two years later, after he’s been freed, you have to have some serious stuff. And that’s exactly what we handed over to the judge.

   VAN SUSTEREN: In your press release, you said a decision would be made by the end of the year whether to prosecute not. Why did you set that timetable? Is that just your personal timetable, or does the law require you, in a certain amount of time?

   MOS: That was going (ph) to be a personal timetable. The two brothers who were involved in the case asked the court to end their case, to give my organization, who’s prosecuting this case, the order to stop this case because there was no new evidence. We didn’t do anything anymore, was what they said to the court, and this case had to be stopped. They had the legal possibility to ask the court to take their position.

   We convinced the judge during that hearing that we were on the job and we were trying to solve this case as best as we could, and there was a team coming from the Netherlands — (INAUDIBLE) came from the Netherlands who did new findings. And of course, we said to ourselves, Can we prolong this case until — over years? That is not possible. That is not possible under the European treaty, which says that you have to try a case within a reasonable time, and that time usually stands for two years.

   These two years already have passed. So you have to be busy on a case which is important enough to go over that period of two years. And then we said, We have to set ourselves a time limit within we have to take a decision in this case, whether we will take it to court or not or we’ll dismiss it. And we set ourselves this time limit of the 31st of December. Then we will take the decision ultimately to charge these three suspects or dismiss the case.

   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313168,00.html

Leave a Reply