Jorian van der Sloot To Be Released

December 7th, 2007 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:
Leave a comment

Jorian van der Sloot will be released later tonight, Aruban authories have said. The rechter-commissaris - a judge who decides whether a suspect can be held longer, among other things – said that he has rejected the request of the Dutch government to hold Van der Sloot in prison for additional 60 days, due to lack of evidence.

Van der Sloot was arrested two weeks ago because new evidence would’ve surfaced proving his involvement in the disappearance of all-American girl Natalee Holloway.

Earlier the two other suspects in the case, two brothers from Suriname, were released as well.

The Ministry of Justice has indicated that it will not try to prosecute Van der Sloot. On Dutch television it was said that it’s possible that it’ll be labeled a cold case or that authorities will decide that there’s not enough evidence to say that Holloway was killed by someone / by violence.

One gets the impression that the family of Holloway will have to look somewhere else for closure. Dutch and Aruban investigators have tried to prosecute Van der Sloot, but if there’s not enough evidence, well, they can want a great many things, but nothing will happen. What’s more, concluding that there’s not enough evidence to prosecute Van der Sloot leads to the logical conclusion that we’ve got to assume that he did not do it.

Holloway’s parents my want closure, but trying to get people prosecuted who didn’t do it, is not the way to get that closure.  They may think Van der Sloot did it, but they don’t know. If they knew, so would authorities. Frankly, they suspect, perhaps, but they weren’t there when their daughter was killed. They don’t know any more than most of us, and especially not more than investigators.

Meanwhile, just think: the evidence indicates that Van der Sloot didn’t do it. How awful must it be to be suspected of something like this? How awful must it be to read media reports convicting you, while you’re innocent?

Did van der Sloot do it? Well, only he knows for sure. But, we have to assume he didn’t. And we have to report about this case with that in the back of our minds.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Interested
    December 7th, 2007 at 18:45
    Reply | Quote | #1

    What’s more, concluding that there’s not enough evidence to prosecute Van der Sloot leads to the logical conclusion that we’ve got to assume that he did not do it.

    Certainly better not to try him without enough evidence to convict. I cannot imagine that the Dutch system is any more forgiving for prosecutors than the US system is.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.