Paulus Van der Sloot in Natalee Holloway Disappearance … No Soup for You in Aruba, Part II (Witnesses & Taped info) Full Translation

As originally posted, “Nothing for you Paulus Van der Sloot” Paulus and Joran shall receive no “ill gotten” gains for their law suit filed that they were inappropriately detained by Aruban police in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Seems that the continued pressure and dwindling tourism has forced Aruban officials and courts to look at events in a different manner than they originally did. Much different.

With this ruling one begins to wonder why Paul Van der Sloot did not spend more time in jail than he actually did? In hindsight, Aruba would have handled this situation in a much different manner. Seems that all bets and promises are off. Some suspects and those involved best begin to start worrying again, or sweating as the case may be. The following is a literal translation as it appears in the Sentencing of the Superior Court.

“With attention to the lying declarations that the son of Paulus, Joran Andreas Petrus van der Sloot (hereafter Joran) gave about his last contact on the 30th of May 2005 with the disappeared Natalee Holloway, the suspicion is not unreasonable that he made himself guilty of a conduct that can be qualified as murder, manslaughter, or kidnapping that resulted in death.

 

The possible involvement of Paulus with that could then be deducted from the file with the official reports of witnesses, amongst which two people suggested a contact existed between Paulus and Natalee Holloway the night of her disappearance, and a tapped report (that was given by the Prosecutor in her final note 1 to the Court). The tapped information and his declaration that he picked up Joran and Natalee by the McDonalds Palm Beach and brought them to the Holiday Inn, are clearly understood by the Dept. of Justice, and could in the judgement of this Superior Court, be considered as an indication of the involvement of Paulus in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.”

 

ORANJESTAD(AAN) On the 13th of  February 2007, the Superior Court dictated sentence against Paul van der Sloot in the case that he appealed with regards to the damages that his person as well as his family members asked for, seeing that in the Primary Court (Court of First Instance) Paul van der Sloot alone (no one else in his family) got a reward of 40,000 guilders for damages and 1500 guilders to cover the costs of the lawyers, court clerks, etc.

 

The sentence of the Superior Court fell like a bomb on Paul van der Sloot and his defence attorney because, according to the attorney, the Court made use of informations that do not agree with the truth.

 

The Court dictated that Paul van der Sloot fetched Joran and Natalee at the McDonald Palm Beach branch and took the two of them to the Holiday Inn, according to declarations by witnesses and also informations obtained from a phone tap carried out by the police.

 

Until recently, this key information was not known in the press and apparently only by the Police and Dept. of Justice.

 

The whole case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway gets a different twist now that the information has come out from no less than the Superior Court, and in which mention is made of the declarations of witnesses and a phone tap that show or give an indication that Paul van der Sloot had on two occasions personal contact with Natalee during the night that she disappeared.

 

Mention is made that, according to one or more official reports of the phone tap and also the declaration of Paul van der Sloot himself, that Paul fetched Joran and Natalee at McDonald and took them to the Holiday Inn.

 

Based on this information, the judicial authorities and the police had at that time a justified basis to arrest Paul van der Sloot based on different suspicions.

 

According to the Superior Court, Paul van der Sloot himself is guilty, he made possible or caused (depends how every one interprets the grammar in the sentence of the Court’s) himself to be arrested and that Aruba cannot be held responsible for the damages that he suffered and for which he was demanding damages, which he won in First Instance, but appealed to get more, and now has lost everything.

 

In the sentence there are various points and aspects that brought a different view on the Natalee Holloway case and that in the coming days will be analyzed, but the most important information is the matter of fetching Natalee and Joran at the McDonald, Palm Beach, and also that Paul had on two occasions personal contacts with Natalee on the night that she disappeared.

 

The cardinal question now is: what did the police authorities hear on the tapped phone of Paul van der Sloot, and the next question is hotter still: at what time, under what circumstances, and where did Paul van der Sloot as the father of Joran van der Sloot  have contacts with Natalee Holloway the night she disappeared?

 

If the Superior Court says that in the official report mention is made that Paul van der Sloot fetched Joran and Natalee on the aforementioned night at McDonald Palm Beach, that is the first contact, but where did the second contact take place?

 

On the night of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, Paul van der Sloot met again with Natalee after he left Joran with Natalee at the Holiday Inn? If that is the case, then where and at what time did Natalee disappear that night?

 

In the declarations of Joran and the Kalpoe brothers there was a heated discussion amongst them, with formal denials as to whether they went with Natalee to the house of Paul van der Sloot on the night of her disappearance.

 

That’s why it is important to get clarity on the two occasions that Paul van der Sloot had personal contacts with Natalee on the night in question and where and under what circumstances they occurred.

 

The lawyer for Paul van der Sloot denies that Paul declared that he fetched Joran and Natalee at McDonald Palm Beach, and that he had contacts with Natalee the night she disappeared, but the Superior Court of Justice based its sentence on the information presented by the interim Attorney General of Aruba.

 

Now, who is lying and who is telling the truth?