Law court officials on the Dutch Antillean island of Curaçao say that Mr Van der Sloot's secretly filmed statements that he was with the girl when she died, and that he disposed of her body, do not constitute new legal evidence.

The suspect's lawyer, Bert de Rooij, claims that his client intentionally lied to the informer who caught the statements on video tape using a hidden camera in his car.

Bitter

Investigative journalist Peter R. de Vries who televised Van der Sloot's confessions in a nationwide TV programme is disappointed by the Curaçao court's decision. Mr De Vries told BNR Radio that this is a bitter pill to swallow, particularly for the family.

"It highlights the distinction between journalistic evidence and legal evidence. I think that the entire nation has been able to see on TV how this man repeated his confessions on five different days: that he was on the beach [in Aruba] with the girl when she died, that he disposed of her body. He never retracted any of this, in fact he reaffirmed it time after time. It is bitter that this information cannot be used. The only reason for him to get rid of the girl's body is that he did not want the police or anybody else to determine what had happened to her."

Shoes

One of the court's arguments to let Mr Van der Sloot off for the time being is that no new legal evidence has come to light as a result of theTV confessions.
Mr De Vries points out that Mr Van der Sloot said he had thrown away a pair of Natalee's shoes. Earlier he had claimed he had forgotten them on the beach. The investigative journalist is suggesting that these shoes may still be around somewhere on Aruba, and that they might yield some forensic evidence.

Improper

Mr De Vries says that Joran van der Sloot has hindered the legal process of establishing the truth. He also questions the view of the Curaçao court, as expressed by a spokesperson, that Mr Van der Sloot may be suffering from a mental condition. Mr De Vries says:

 1 2 Next >