At first, I wondered if I’d attribute anything worthwhile to this discussion by writing a reply. Not necessarily because I feel my opinion is unwarranted, but mainly because the sheer lack of respect and knowledge on substantial matters on ‘both sides’ – so to speak – in this discussion.
Of course, media coverage in an effort to help solve a missing person’s case is always welcome and as such, the initiative shown by doctor McGraw is to be applauded. However, I do have various problems with the exact message he, and others, is sending out.
First of all, I do now feel it is wise for someone who has little to no knowledge about the legal system (neither the Dutch nor Aruban) can make claims regarding incompetence and such. I’m not a psychologist and therefore, I would not utter any claims which fall within that area. I do however, have some knowledge about the Dutch legal system, as I’ve studied law at the Erasmus University in the Netherlands, with a specialisation in criminal law.
Although there are some differences, both legal systems (Dutch and Aruban) are similar in many aspects. I’m not involved in the case, so I have no full insight in the files on the matter, nor does dr. McGraw nor anyone else here on this message board; therefore, some more consideration regarding what one’s saying might be prudent.
It is always very unsatisfactory when cases such as these aren’t resolved, but I suggest we take a closer look at the possibilities (under law) and the effort that has been made to solve this case. The three main suspects have been detained and questioned. The maximum period one can spend in custody before the first hearing takes place (which can also be a so called ‘pro forma’ hearing), is 110 days. There has to be a certain level of suspicion and several other grounds (type of the crime, danger of fleeing, etc.) for this period to be upheld. Obviously, this wasn’t the case with the three suspects in question. The report that Joran van der S. has fled the country is also ludicrous, as he has moved to the Netherlands, which is part of the Kingdom. Massive search parties, which included local police, Dutch police, Dutch armed forces, FBI and volunteers, have spread across the island. Dutch fighter jets have made reconnaissance runs over the island, a practice commonly used in the Netherlands itself, which often provides worthwhile information in missing persons’ cases.
None of these searches has provided with anything substantial.
One must also understand that no other law enforcement agency apart from the Aruban police have judicial authority on the island. Not even the Netherlands, the island’s parent-state, has such authority under normal circumstances, as the island – although not autonomous – is self-sustaining, apart from foreign policy and defence issues.
Would a boycott of the island help matters? I sincerely doubt it. First of all, I can’t help asking why one would want to impose such a boycott. Granted, the outcome thus far has been far from satisfactory, but sometimes that’s just an unwanted result in a criminal case. Not every case is solved and many take a long time to be solved. The boycott is nothing more than a cry for help – understandable because of all the emotions, but emotions are never a sufficient guidance in solving cases like these, or any other for that matter.
I’ve read several appalling replies from several posters, throwing filth around without – as is often the case – actually making a point. Some have even discusses whether ms. Holloway was a virgin or not, or about the way she was dressed. I honestly don’t see why or how this could be relevant to the case; in blunt terms, even if she wanted to walk around naked, that still doesn’t mean anyone had the right to touch her. Many people have also talked about the three suspects or, as many people put it, the three killers. As far as I know, someone is innocent until proven guilty – the presumptio innocentiae is a basic principle of criminal procedure and, as in many national laws, it is codified in e.g. article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Some have also expressed their concerns regarding the lack of information which is offered to the Holloway family. Like I said earlier, I’m not involved in the case so I can only speculate about the motives. Most likely, there could be fear for the integrity of the investigation, as Mrs. Holloway has expressed her opinion (not often very politically correct nor based on facts, but considering her situation, I won’t hold it against her) in the media on several occasions. Spreading certain information around could hamper the investigation and as such, would offer a valid reason for the Aruban prosecution service not to indulge any further information.
To summarize, I understand the emotions this case has brought with it, but I also feel these have led to wrong assumptions on every side. People with no knowledge about certain legal systems should be careful about what they say on matters like these. Crime happens everywhere and considering the overall low rate on Aruba, it would be wrong to paint them off as a criminal and corrupt island.
It's a story that captured national attention and struck fear in the hearts of parents everywhere. Eighteen-year-old Natalee Holloway disappeared during a senior class trip to the island of Aruba. Now, Dr. Phil uncovers information never before revealed. Tune in for exclusive interviews -- some potentially incriminating -- with witnesses, suspects and their families and friends. Find out what the polygraph says about a crucial witness, and hear Natalee's mom describe how the horror of losing her precious daughter unfolded over one heartbreaking summer. Share your thoughts here.
