Public Ministry gave erroneous information
According to attorney Wix
Deepak, Satish and Joran can no longer be investigated
Diario Aruba
12/22/2007

ORANJESTAD(AAN): Friday morning, at the offices of attorneys Ronny Wix, David Kock and Elgin Zeppenveld, a press conference was held in which the attorneys for Satish and Deepak Kalpoe reacted to what was brought forward during the last press conference by the Public Ministry related to the case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.

Atorney Wix brought up that there are various matters that were raised by the Public Ministry that are not totally correct. The lawyers continued saying that the Public Ministry, in an unusual manner, went into the details of the case on Thursday, when they mentioned among other things two facts that they considered to be new evidence in this case, which led them to the detention of the 3 suspects.

Wix said that according to the O.M., Deepak Kalpoe said that Natalee Holloway was dead, but at no time did Deepak say this. According to the lawyer, in the same period of time there was a conversation between Deepak and a friend of his in which they spoke of the Natalee case, but they also spoke about a tennis instructor that Deepak knows who died in Conchi.

In this conversation, Deepak spoke of the death of this person and not of Natalee. The conversation was in Papiamento and in the translation into Dutch, for “su morto” [his/her death], they put “haar dood” [her death], while clearly Deepak was speaking of the death of the male tennis instructor.

The Hof also realized that the O.M. took this out of context. Another of the two parts of the supposed new evidence was a conversation between Satish and a female friend of his from Suriname, where the O.M. said that the girl stated that during the conversation Satish sounded sad.

According to Wix, between the 5th of May and 6th of June 2005, which is two and a half years ago, there were 24 conversations between this girl and Satish, which were long.

This makes it difficult to remember which day this supposed conversation took place. This conversation could have also taken place before Natalee disappeared.

They interviewed the girl in June 2007 and this surely makes it difficult to remember exactly what day this conversation took place.

How could it be that if the O.M. says that the conversation was exactly on May 30? According to Wix, last month the prosecutor said that they had new evidence and that they would arrest and now he says that he doesn’t have enough evidence and that they will no longer consider them suspects.

This means that the O.M. lied a month ago or is lying now. The lawyer also said that it is not completely true what prosecutor Mos said Thursday, since at the same time that the case ends, the 3 former suspects remain suspects.

According to Wix, nothing is further from the truth. Now that the 3 boys are no longer suspects, the Public Ministry is no longer free to question the innocence of these persons.

This means that authorities cannot conduct an investigation on them. The lawyer also said that what he is unhappy with is that the chief prosecutor Mos and P.G. Jorg basically said that they will stop the case, among other things because the boys made use of their right to remain silent and that because of this the O.M. could not solve the case.

This implies that the kids know something and are not talking. This, according to Wix, is because his clients have given more than 20 statements; therefore the O.M. cannot say that they have not talked.

They have said everything that they had to say. During the last detention the former suspects told authorities that they have said everything they know and that if there was something new, they were willing to give a comment on this. Given that there wasn’t anything new, they didn’t say anything.

[translated by Getagrip]

OM gives up core evidence Holloway-case

Chief district attorney Hans Mos explains why the case against the three suspects in the Natalee Holloway-case was dropped.

Amigoe.com
12/22/2007

ORANJESTAD – A chat-session, computer disks, and two new testimonies were among others, the reason for the OM to detain Joran van der Sloot and the brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe in November, indicated chief district attorney Hans Mos yesterday in a press conference, where he explained the case that has been dropped.

With the newest digital technologies from the Netherlands, the investigation team this time recovered what was impossible earlier. On the hard drive of a confiscated computer was a chat-session, in which one of the suspects said that the missing teenager Natalee Holloway is dead. The OM didn’t say which of the suspects said that, but the information is substantial and especially ‘new’ evidence, and sufficient for the OM to arrest the three. Obtaining information from new technology is also considered new evidence, explained Mos. He compared it with a DNA-investigation that after years, can still give evidence.

The new investigation team with Dutch detectives could also use technologies to make a timeline of all the declarations. It appears that the last version of the three suspects on the day that Natalee disappeared is also not correct. Other new, indirect evidence are two testimonies. A woman told the team in June of 2005 that five hours after Natalee was seen alive for the last time, she received a telephone call from one of the three former suspects. From his voice she noticed that something was wrong. When she asked him what was wrong, he said that he doesn’t want to compromise her. “I cannot tell you what has happened over the phone”, was his answer.

In a declaration in November of 2006, a witness described the deviant behavior of one of the three one day after the disappearance of Holloway. That was also indirect evidence. The new evidence was for the judge too indirect and not enough to keep the three in custody. But Justice was confident that the three would start talking.

“Information they gave the media gives the impression that they had more things to say than they had told us until now”, said Mos, who said that the conversations the three former suspects had with Dutch journalists were also filed as evidence in the dossier.

With all this evidence that the OM obtained after the three were released at the end of summer in 2005, the judge give them permission to arrest the three. The OM was also in a hurry, due to the European treaty on the suspects’ rights to be tried within a reasonable period of time. The OM has set a deadline for December 31. Mos says that Van der Sloot and Deepak and Satish Kalpoe are still the three most important persons in the investigation, and possible new evidence will be investigated till the term of investigation is over. The police corps in Aruba keeps therefore four detectives available for new information and implication. Term of limitation for culpable homicide is six years and manslaughter is 12 years.

The case will be reopened if necessary. According to Aruban law, it is possible to close the criminal case without bringing it before the court. A definite acquittal can be avoided with this. The former suspects are also protected against ‘repeated troubling for the same facts based on the same evidence’. But the protection is less powerful than acquittal. After an acquittal by a judge in last instance, it won’t be possible to bring the same facts before the court again.

Public Ministry reveals what the new evidence was in the Holloway case
Diario Aruba
12/21/2007

ORANJESTAD(AAN): Midday Thursday, the Public Ministry held a press conference related to their decision to declare that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers are no longer suspects in the case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.

Chief prosecutor Hans Mos started by saying that the Public Ministry no longer holds the trio as suspects.

He said that this decision was not taken lightly, and that the Public Ministry evaluated every aspect along with jurists are their disposal and jointly the conclusion was reached that finally the investigation did not produce enough legal evidence to be able to bring the case successfully before a judge.

Mos continued to say that if the case had been brought forth, he is sure that the suspects would have been acquitted of all accusations. Given that the Public Ministry arrived at this conclusion, it was against the O.M.’s professional code to bring this case to court.

After explaining how the investigation proceeded, among other things under the guidance of a new team, prosecutor Mos continued to say that they made use of all available tools to be able to bring the suspects in front of a judge, but unsuccessfully.

He said that given that the new evidence was brought up and that he truly felt that the Public Ministry could have achieved something with this, he preferred to make an attempt to be able to find more material to bring the case forward, rather than not try.

As to the new evidence, Mos explained that when the Public Ministry spoke of the new evidence, it referred to all evidence that had been found after the three suspects were set free after July 2005.

Given that the evidence was found after that they were released, they could consider it as new evidence, for which once again the suspects could be re-detained and the judge was in agreement that there was sufficient reason to do this.

Mos brought up that an important clue that the O.M. found was a female witness who came forward in June 2007. This witness told the O.M. about a telephone conversation that she had with one of the suspects, exactly 5 hours and 13 minutes after Natalee Holloway was last seen alive for the last time, according to the O.M.

The witness said that during the conversation, she could hear that something wasn’t right with the person. She asked the boy what happened and as an answer he told the girl that he didn’t want to get her in trouble and that what happened could not be told over the phone.

Aside from this, there was a declaration from a witness relating to the bahaviour of one of the other suspects on the day of the disappearance of Natalee. Furthermore, a digital search was conducted on the hard drives of the 3 suspects’ computers and on the computers of others as well.

These hard drives contained chat conversations among the suspects and among the suspects and others which demonstrated that they knew more about this case as well. These conversations contained important information.

One of these chats referred to the fact that Natalee was dead. This search was better able to determine a so-called ‘time line’ in regards to the disappearance of Natalee. The technicians in the digital search are technicians who did not have access to these earlier in the investigation.

The reconstructed time line, combined with facts found earlier and the information given by the suspects in their declarations, made the O.M. conclude that the last version given by the suspects could not fit with the truth.

Because of this there were big questions about the 3 suspects’ alibis. Another new evidence was a recording made in the Kalpoe brothers’ home.

Prosecutor Mos brought up that additionally, with the different interviews that Joran and his father gave to different Dutch media, it gave the impression that they had more information than they had given.

The problem was that there was little direct evidence to be able to bring the case in front of a judge. The fact that the three suspects made use of their right to remain silent also made it very difficult to make the case.

The Public Ministry had to take a decision to declare the kids no longer suspects in this case because according to the law, this has to be done within a reasonable period of time, in order for the O.M. not to lose its right to prosecute this case.

Now that the decision has been taken, it does not mean that the investigation into this case will not continue, rather that a different phase begins.

All new evidence that surfaces will be added to the evidence they already have, to see if they could still make a criminal case. If there’s enough evidence, they can still begin a criminal case against the 3 suspects.

However, one has to take into account the term [statute of limitations] that the law has for this. According to Mos, the law sets a term of 6 years for voluntary manslaughter, while for murder, the term by which the case against the suspects must be made is 12 years.

If after 12 years any important evidence is found, the suspects could no longer be criminally prosecuted.

Mos explained that there are some special agents available to continue the investigation and this is important, because there are various people who have come forward who have said that they have certain information that could help in the investigation.

Because of this, the chief prosecutor made an appeal for any persons who have information, to come forward with it.

[translated by Getagrip]

Official press release by the Public Ministry indicates
Authorities don't have proof that Natalee died
Documents do not contain proof of what happened
Diario Aruba
12/19/2007

ORANJESTAD (AAN): Via a bulletin issued midday Tuesday, the Public Ministry of Aruba informed the three suspects in the case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway – Deepak Kalpoe, 24, his brother Satish Kalpoe, 21 and Joran v.d. Sloot, 20 – that they will not be criminally prosecuted. At the same time, the Public Ministry informed the American lawyer of Natalee Holloway’s parents of the decision.

On the basis of an additional long and extensive investigation, conducted by a team of Dutch and Aruban investigators, the three suspects were re-detained at the end of November. Their detentions were based on new and serious evidence that was gathered in the last 8 months.

Although the judge shared the opinion of the Public Ministry that there was sufficient new investigative material to justify their re-detention, these detentions did not bring about a definite break in the investigation. All suspects chose to use their right to not give any statement.

Finally, in an appeal by the Public Ministry against the release of the Kalpoe brothers, the Common Court of Justice was of the opinion that the investigation did not show sufficient evidence to conclude that Natalee Holloway died as a consequence of a violent act. It was exactly this suspicion of which the Public Ministry accused the suspects.

After the three suspects were already released, the Public Ministry carefully reconsidered and evaluated all the evidence. They arrived at the conclusion that the file contained insufficient evidence to prove, in front of the Court of Justice, that a violent act was committed against Natalee Holloway or that her death was caused by an involuntary act by any of the suspects. There was also insufficient proof as to what concerns a sexual crime (zedendelict).

The Public Ministry is convinced that if they proceeded with a criminal prosecution of the suspects for the mentioned acts, this would have resulted with a vrijspraak (acquittal). Given this line of thought, the Public Ministry could not decide to criminally prosecute.

Although the Public Ministry has and is looking at the possibilities to prove that Natalee Holloway has died, the fact that her body was never found presents an important limitation in the possible reconstruction of the facts. The current criminal file, also for this reason, does not give sufficient answers as to the question of what punishable acts took place on the night of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, and it doesn’t have answers as to the question of what exactly were the roles of the suspects.

The Public Ministry and the investigative team are convinced that after the investigation that has been conducted since April of this year, they have sufficiently determined that all other scenarios that have been considered in the last 2½ years and in which the three suspects are not included are improbable or, with the current investigation results, excluded.

With the press release of no more criminal prosecution, the Public Ministry dismisses the cases against the three suspects with regards to the facts related with the preliminary judicial investigation and their detentions. This does not mean that if they are able to find solid evidence in this case, that the criminal prosecution is no longer possible. Criminal prosecution is possible until the punishable acts that have been mentioned become too old. For voluntary manslaughter (homicidio culposo - dood door schuld), the term is 6 years from the date of the punishable offense. For homicide (homicidio - doodslag), the term is 12 years.

The Public Ministry is aware that after losing their child and not being able to find her, the results of this investigation has been difficult for the parents of Natalee Holloway. It is for this important reason, amongst others, the Public Ministry and Police made all efforts in the investigation, which was exceptionally long and intensive, to resolve the disappearance of the youngster and went to the depths of the arsenal of criminal instruments [available to them].

Despite the fact that this work did not bring a solution to this case, the Public Ministry and Police are of the opinion that they did all that was in their power to be able to bring clarity to the case, which was the right decision to take.

The Public Ministry will give more explanations regarding this decision and will give the opportunity to ask questions during a press conference Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 12:00 in the press hall of the Government Building in Oranjestad. Until that moment, it will not answer questions.

[translated by Getagrip]

Press release by the Aruban Public Prosecutor’s Office

Natalee Holloway Case Dismissed

Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 - 11:33 AM

Source: NBC 13 Staff

From a press release by the Aruban Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The office notified the three suspects in the case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, 24 year old D.S.K., his brother, 21 year old S.S.K., and 20 year old J.v.d. S., that no charges will be brought against them.
At the same time the American lawyer of the parents of Natalee Holloway was informed by telephone and fax about this decision.

Based on a lengthy and extensive supplementary investigation, executed by a mixed team of Dutch and Aruban detectives, the three suspects were re-arrested by the end of November. These arrests were based on new evidence that was gathered during the investigation of the past eight months. Although a judge shared the Public Prosecutor’s decision that sufficient new evidence was produced to justify the re-arrest of the suspects and keep them in custody. The period of custody did not bring the final breakthrough in this investigation. All three suspects claimed their right not to give any statement at all. Finally, in an appeal of the Public Prosecutor against the early release of the two brothers K., the Court of Appeal ruled that the investigation did not show sufficient evidence to conclude that Natalee Holloway had died due to a violent crime. It were exactly these kinds of crimes the Public Prosecutor held against the three suspects.

Since the release of all three suspects the Public Prosecutor’s Office has diligently considered and weighed all available evidence. It came to the opinion that the investigation did not bring about sufficient evidence to convince a Court of law that a crime of violence against Natalee Holloway has been committed, nor that her death has been caused by involuntary actions by either of the suspects. Neither was sufficient evidence gathered for sexual abuse. The Public Prosecutor’s Office expects that if this case would be tried in court it would lead to an acquittal of all three suspects on these various charges. Given that expectation the Public Prosecutor could no longer press charges against all three. It is contrary to the professional conduct to prosecute someone if the prosecutor himself expects an acquittal.

Although the Public Prosecutor’s Office did see and still sees possibilities to prove that Natalee Holloway is no longer alive, the fact that her body never was found forms an important deficit in a possible reconstruction of the facts. Mainly because of that reason the current police report can not answer the question which crime was committed in the night of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway nor shed light on the exact role of the three suspects in the events.

Yet the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the team of investigators are convinced that after this year’s investigation from April until December, it has become clear that any scenario beyond the one that implicates these three suspects has either been falsified or is proven to be highly unlikely.

By notifying the three suspects that they will not be charged with the crimes that were under investigation by the judge of instruction or for which they have been kept in custody or, two years ago, in pre-trial detention, these crimes now have been dismissed. This does not imply that, if new serious evidence were to be found, this case could never be tried in court again. This is still possible within the statute of limitation. In case of involuntary manslaughter this period is 6 years counting from the day following the crime that was committed. In case of homicide this period ends after 12 years.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office is more than aware of the fact that this result of the investigation is a tough burden to bear for the parents of Natalee Holloway. After losing their daughter they have not been able to bring her back. Because of that important reason, amongst others, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Police have gone the extra mile and have exhausted all their powers and techniques, in order to solve the mystery of the disappearance of the girl. It took a lengthy and very intensive investigation where even help from abroad was asked for and received. Despite the fact that with all this we have not been able to solve the case, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Police share the opinion that by making the choice to try to do everything that is within their possibilities to bring the case to a solution, they made the right decision.

Suspects Holloway not prosecuted

One of the last pictures of Natalee Holloway and the three other ‘central figures’ Satish and Deepak Kalpoe and Joran van der Sloot taken in Aruba.

Amigoe.com
12/18/2007

ORANJESTAD – The Public Prosecutor (OM) decided not to prosecute the three suspects in the Holloway-case. The dossier does not have enough evidence for a violent crime or culpable homicide. Also the burden of proof for possible legal evidence is not sufficient, concluded the OM.

The OM informed the suspects Joran van der Sloot (20) and the brothers Deepak (24) and Satish Kalpoe (21) this morning that they are no longer being prosecuted. Also the American lawyer of the parents of Natalee Holloway was informed. The fact that the body of the missing teenager was never found is for the OM ‘an important shortage’ in the possible reconstruction of what had exactly happened. “Because of that, the current dossier cannot give sufficient answer on the question which punishable facts took place in the night of Holloway’s disappearance, nor can it answer the question what the exact role of the suspects was in this”, said the OM.

That the suspects continued to be silent during the recent interrogations was also a disappointment for the OM, because they have assumed that the suspects would start talking this time. The OM emphasizes though that if they find new important evidence, the prosecution will start again till the offences become barred, which is 6 years for culpable homicide and 12 years for manslaughter.

The bailiff of the OM informed Lawyer Ariean de Bie of this between 11:00 and 12:00 this morning. “That definitely concludes the case", said De Bie. “All's well that ends well. There was just not enough evidence.”

Yet, it could have just turned the other way. “The OM was constantly talking about less serious facts, for which they could have been prosecuted. But that didn’t happen. They never had any evidence, just indications. And could their indications have legalized this exercise? I wonder why they kept saying: we have evidence, we have evidence.”