March 20, 2006
HarryTho 3/20 Natalee Holloway CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
With little in the form of revelations concerning the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance over the weekend, I will explore another interestingly possible lead in the investigation. This lead emanates from Joran van der Sloot's recent interviews with Greta of Fox News.
During his interview with Greta, Joran van der Sloot maintained that he did not engage in sexual intercourse with Natalee Holloway, because he did not have a condom with him at the time. Joran expressed serious concern that he maintained with engaging in unprotected sex. He states emphatically that he would never have sex without a condom.
To many Americans ... especially the bimbo experts of the cable news networks ..., Joran's reason is just too much to swallow. Many quotes have precipitated that teens engage in unprotected sex all the time. The thought of a condom deterring them seems ludicrous. Yet, in spite of the American claims, many posters have documented a sincere opinion of the Dutch that unsafe sex is abhorred. Accordingly, it is not just Joran who feels this way about unsafe sex, it a national preference against unsafe sex.
With this information, it seems that the condom issue was addressed sufficiently. At first, I even tended to agree ... not so much from satisfaction, as from lack of interest. However, over the weekend other issues arose that warranted that I revisit the issue.
First, Joran made plans ... albeit they were impromptu ... to meet the girls from the Kingdom of Mountian Brook at Carlos & Charlie's (C&C). Please recall that he called Deepak Kalpoe that very evening in order to obtain a ride to C&C. Admittedly, it was a rushed affair; however, it did take time for Deepak to clean his car and drive to Joran's house in order to pick him up. Whether it was 20 or 30 minutes is of little consequence. Joran had time to verify his readiness. Maybe that entailed taking a shower, shaving and/or changing clothes; nonetheless, Joran has ample time in order to prepare for the evening.
Second, Joran has selected a girl of interest in advance. It was one of Natalee's classmates ... Catherine something. It was the girl that he encountered at the Excelsior Casino that he admitted had caught his eye. He knew that she was an American. And, from Joran's statements and other statements published about the impressions that the Dutch have of American girls in Aruba, clearly Joran may have thought that Catherine was a girl of easy virtue.
With that said, Joran would have prepared for a night with a girl of easy virtue in one way or another: 1) he put at least one condom in his wallet or pocket or 2) he went unprotected with the intention of not engaging in sex (an unlikely option, but an option nonetheless). Why? Joran knew that he would most likely get the opportunity to have sex with this girl. Accordingly, Joran had already decided whether or not he would have accommodated this easy American teenager.
Yet, when Joran describes his encounter with Natalee Holloway at the Fisherman's Huts, he seems surprised that he does not have a condom with him in his wallet. He specifically mentions his wallet as the location of his safe sex device. For those American males who equipped themselves similarly, they know that a condom would adhere (somewhat) to the leather of the wallet to such an extent that the leather would form around the condom, highlighting its circular shape onto the surface of the wallet. It would have been a quite check to verify that a condom was in Joran's wallet.
In this context, I would have to question Joran's surprise that a condom was not present in his wallet. Either he had never "loaded" one prior to hooking up with the girls at C&C, or he had not intention of hooking up sexually. However, to act surprised about not finding a condom in his wallet seems disingenuous. Either he knew he did not have a condom, or he used it.
Please recall that Joran claimed to have a condom in his wallet at all times ... just in case. So, how come one was not there? Did he use one on Natalee Holloway then claim he never had one in order to explain its absence?
If Joran had a condom in his wallet at all times, he would need to explain why he did not have one with Natalee Holloway. It could be that he used one a few days earlier and simply forgot about it. You know, the experience was so uneventful that it was not worth mentioning ... and he forgot that he even used a condom. If so, I am sure that the young lady in question would be willing to testify to Joran's condom usage. The problem comes if Joran cannot explain the absence of the condom.
Some opponents of this line of inquiry would say: Well, it just fell out of his wallet. To me, that would be a difficult possibility. As I mentioned above, the condom tends to adhere a little to the leather of the wallet. Ok, it could be a non-leather wallet! So, now, we have to ascertain what kind of wallet Joran actually had. That should be easy. The Aruban police would have documented it when they took Joran into custody. Actually, if Joran had carried a condom in his wallet for some time, then the imprint of its shape may have been still present on the surface of the wallet when the police documented it.
To me, Joran's story can be supported if a young lady comes forward attesting to engaging in protected sex with Joran a few days before the incident at the Fisherman's Huts. If not, then I suspect Joran's condom theory may be open to further criticism.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at March 20, 2006 9:02 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 3/20 Natalee Holloway Commentary - Mar 20, 2006