Statement from the Aruban Prosecutors Office Regarding Joran Van der Sloot and the Natalee Holloway Investigation … I was High on Marijuana
So what happens when a suspect in a crime gets caught telling the truth? EXCUSE … EXCUSE … EXCUSE!!! Joran says he was high. Actually one would have to be stoned to believe he was not involved in Natalee Holloway’s disappearance as he admitted to.
Joran Van der Sloot was questioned by Dutch investigators for 2 hours in the Netherlands today. In typical Joran Van der Sloot fashion, who has an excuse for everything, he claimed that he was under the influence of marijuana when he said in a secretly taped video. Marijuana made you lie? Really, if anything pot would lower your inhibitions and make one say things that they would usually not. Maybe Joran was using it for medicinal purposes? So Joran states he was under the influence of marijuana on the tapes. Maybe Joran would like to tell us what Natalee Holloway was under the influence of when in less that 1/2 hour he left Carlos N’ Charlies with her, and she was never to be seen from again.
It would appear that Joran always has an excuse for every lie he tells. If he is not scared, he is embarrassed. If he is not embarrassed, he is high on drugs. How about the fact that that you were caught with your pants down bragging of your claim to fame like all sociopaths wind up doing. After all this time, this is the defense you are using? You were high? You were not high Joran … you were caught!
ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) — Aruban investigators in the Netherlands again questioned a Dutch college student Friday in the Natalee Holloway disappearance as they sought a court order to detain him as a suspect based on a hidden-camera interview.
Police questioned Joran Van der Sloot for about two hours, and he again denied any role in the May 2005 disappearance of the American teen in the Dutch Caribbean island, the Aruban prosecutor’s office said in a statement. The 20-year-old Van der Sloot was detained previously in the case but was released for insufficient evidence.
Van der Sloot, who was accompanied by a lawyer, claimed he was under the influence of marijuana when he said in a secretly taped video that he was with Holloway when she died and that he had a friend dump her body at sea, the prosecutor’s office said.
The Aruban prosecutors released a statemenent as well:
To all media
From the Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date February 8, 2008
J.v.d.S. interrogated at Police Station in Rotterdam
This morning, between 10:00 – 12:30 hours (Netherlands time) the police interrogated J.v.d.S. at a police station in Rotterdam. J.v.d.S. was interrogated by police officers of the Aruban Police Department and the Netherlands National Police Department. His lawyer was present during the interrogation, which lasted about two hours.
During the interrogation Joran Van der Sloot indicated that during the conversations he had in the car he was under the influence of marihuana. Furthermore, he sticks to his statements made earlier during the investigation. He denies to have anything to do with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.
The decision of the Court of Appeal of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba is crucial to the possibility of further interrogations of J.v.d.S.
As already stated on February 5, 2008, the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal against the decision of the investigating judge to deny the re-detention of J.v.d.S.. The decision of the Court of Appeal is not expected until after the weekend.
Under the direction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Aruban Police Department is still investigating this case. In the interest of the investigation, the Public Prosecutor’s Office appeals to the press to please refrain from a witch-hunt or private investigations or fishing expeditions (all this in the broadest sense of the word),
The Public Prosecutor’s Office doesn’t fail to notice that the investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway draws a lot of interest from media and general public. However, this interest seems to be turning into a witch-hunt in which several persons are being harassed.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office regards this as not acceptable. In the first place, without any confirmation persons are being labeled as a suspect, and harassed as such. In the second place, journalistic investigations and the subsequent reporting thereof, at a time the investigative team is still busy trying to get an answer to many questions, can seriously harm the criminal investigation. Not only does it cause a lot of unrest, or may generate misinformation, it may also harm the outcome of the investigation itself, e.g. when witnesses questioned by the judge at trial can’t be sure if they witnessed something themselves or they know a fact from the media.
Without questioning the value of freedom of the press, it would be desirable if the press would act a little distantly for aforementioned reasons.