October 6, 2005
HarryTho Thursday Night Natalee Holloway Update And CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
Today hasn't exactly been a day for hot news on Natalee, with most of the news focusing on the finding of Taylor Beals body (here, here, and here). But regardless of the slim pickings, there are a few things to cover and comment on.
Scared Monkeys posts "Jossy Mansur; "The irony of all this is that Arubans don't have anything to do with the case,"" in which Jossy Mansur pleads his case for not boycotting Aruba:
The principal suspects is Dutch, the lead investigator was Dutch, the prosecutor is Dutch and the five judges involved are Dutch. If you think about it, an attempted boycott against Aruba is unjust, because it is misdirected and won't achieve the desired results.Although Jossy gets in a few licks, he's just not the guy to sell the deal, inasmuch as he's a little short in credibility among non-Arubans here in the U.S.
Moving on to cable news,Greta on Fox News interviewed Dave Holloway.
Dave reported that the investigation was still in full swing in Aruba. He cited seeing 3-4 investigators working the case full time while he was there, and states that the biggest issue under consideration is the recent taping of Deepak Kalpoe by Jimmy Skeeter. Dave questioned why there had not been any arrest over the contents of the tape.
Greta queried Dave on the alleged statements being promoted to the media concerning Joran's admitting sexual relations with Natalee. Dave responded that he had read a transcribed statement, and that other than that one statement, denied any knowledge of any others. Greta avoided probing Dave as to the origin of the transcribed statement.
In closing, Dave expressed that his patience was running thin over the lack of arrests and developments in the case of his daughter's disappearance. He said that he cannot believe that the Aruban authorities can come up with nothing when an American can waltz in there and acquire such a damaging taped conversation.
Dave concluded by saying that he would be returning to Aruba to meet with various authoritative agencies and organizations.
There's one clarification that I'd like to make on the Greta interview of Dave Holloway. When Greta asked a question about the alleged transcribed statement of Joran's sexual involvement with Natalee, Dave referenced Beth's statements concerning the authenticity of the transcribed statements. Accordingly, Dave has not possesed any separate knowledge of any statement made by Joran concerning his sexual involvement with Natalee other than those transcribed statements provided to Beth Twitty.
Since there was little news available today on Natalee's disappearance, I thought I would entertain the differences between an aspect of the Aruban judicial practice and that of America. The issue that seems to confuse most American followers of the Natalee Holloway disappearance case has to do with the lack plea bargaining in the Aruban system.
In the American judicial system, law enforcement, with the approval of the American judicial authorities, can offer plea bargains in order to expedite prosecutions. On the surface, this idea seems to have tremendous merit. Adding a sense of poker charm, it allows an interrogator or prosecutor the ability to finesse one of the defendants in a crime to speak the truth and, in return, reduce his sentence or even be acquitted of the crime. Although one criminal goes free, we end up knowing the truth of the crime and the other participants receive the full retribution of the law. The benefit is that it makes prosecution easier on law enforcement, and more criminals find their way behind bars. Clearly, it makes criminals uneasy about potential capers, involving multiple participants. Plea bargaining provides many deterrents to criminal enterprises.
The Aruban system, on the other hand, not only makes law enforcement's job more difficult, in many case, it encourages criminals. Would-be criminals appreciate the difficulty the prosecution will have convicting them.
From a prosecution standpoint that evaluates its performance with respect to incarceration numbers and crime resolution rates, the American system is far superior. The foregoing makes a good argument for the American system of justice.
Now, let us entertain the notion of innocence or guilt, a notion of premier importance to Americans. Clearly, the foregoing promotes action against those responsible for criminal activity. How does it treat those individual in society not guilty of criminal behavior that somehow get ensnared into the judicial system?
In the American system of plea bargaining, if a group of individuals were arrested and charged with a crime, based upon fairly reliable evidence and witnesses, a guilty party could plea bargain his way to freedom at the expense of innocent individuals. Recall a testimony form one believable defendant can condemn the others. Naturally, if the plea-barganing culprit committed the crime, then he is knowledgeable of the details of the crime to a sufficient degree from which he can implicate others. Simply, the real culprit narrates the crime, diminishing his participation while enhancing that of others, real or otherwise. The result under this scenario is that a real criminal goes free while some innocent parties are incarcerated. I suspect that this scenario was not entertained when plea bargaining in America was introduced.
Now the sad scenario: A completely innocent man is ensnared into a criminal enterprise in which the other participants commit a heinous crime, and all agree, in conspirary, to plea bargain in which the innocent man is framed for the crime. To really sour this scenario, those in law enforcement even participate in the framing. The result is that a majority of the real criminals go free. Others get their sentences reduced to varying degrees. The innocent man is framed and incarcerated for a long time. Plea bargaining facilitates this scenario to unfold with ease and speed.
Although the two foregoing, unattractive scenarios are possible under the Aruban system, they are clearly more difficult. A guilty party cannot blame another without suffering the same fate. The unattractive scenarios are limited to complete fabrications in which only the targeted, innocent individual is implicated. For multiple-culprit crimes, when you are determined to be guilty in Aruba, chances are you are truly guilty. I wish I could say the same for America.
Another downside of plea bargaining is that an innocent man, faced with a group of less than honorable individuals (possibly law enforcement personnel) attesting to his guilt, could be influenced by the prosecution to accept a plea bargain in order to obtain clemency for a guilty plea. In Aruba, it is far more difficult to be so implicated.
In conclusion, despite the speed with which plea bargaining in America facilitates criminal cases, I believe, the foregoing displays that though more culprits are prosecuted so are more innocent individuals. If you are innocent and falsely accused, you are better protected in Aruba. In Aruba, law enforcement has to prove you are guilty without enticements.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at October 6, 2005 11:57 PM
What exactly were the comments that were contained in Deepak's taped interview? By the way, you've got a great site here. Thanks.
Posted by: RBinBham at October 7, 2005 9:10 AM
Isn't it odd that no one has heard this entire tape, with no interuptions????
Posted by: Jillian in Boston at October 7, 2005 11:26 AM
As I understand, the entire taped conversation elapses a period of few hours in Jimmy Skeeter's hotel room. What we are hearing are excerpts from that conversation. Clearly, what we hear has been edited.
Deepak's attorney has objected to the content being aired as not representing Deepak's intended representations, shared with Jimmy Skeeter. Hence, we find ourselves immersed within a dilemma in which what is being aired may or may not have been adulterated by Jimmy Skeeter or others.
Given the pleadings from the USA for FBI involvement, it is clear that the Aruban government could request assistance from the FBI to subpoena those tapes from Jimmy Skeeter, if, under Aruban law, such a nonconsensual taping can be entered into the court as evidence.
Would the tapes, if they are an accurate representation of the conversation between Deepak Kalpoe and Jimmy Skeeter, be of any value in the case of Natalee's disappearance? Whether the suspects had sex with Natalee or not may not be significant, if no body is ever discovered. If the body is discovered and semen from the three suspects is confirmed, then the statements of the suspects may have an effect on the outcome or lead to a resolution of the case.
Without a body, the Skeeter tapes provide little solace.
Posted by: harry at October 7, 2005 5:46 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: