Saturday, May 16, 2015

Natalee Holloway Witness

 here is an article about the eyewitness claim to Natalee Holloway's death.  
What do you need to know to analyze the statement?

– On the night of May 30, 2005, Natalee Holloway ran onto a construction site with suspect Joran van der Sloot hot at her heels—and only five minutes later she was dead, according to a man who claims to be an eyewitness. But he says investigators won't take his story seriously, WTVR reports. Dutchman Jurrien de Jong, 59, tells Inside Edition that van der Sloot chased Holloway onto the Aruba construction site:

“I saw Natalee Holloway on the last night she was alive. I was the eyewitness.”

"In about five minutes, he came out with Natalee in his arms and slammed the body of Natalee on the floor, and then he made an opening in a crawl space … I knew she was dead.

De Jong says he didn't speak up at the time because he was doing illegal things himself. Earlier this year, he told the NL Times that he liked visiting the Marriott Hotel construction site for drug-related activities.
After seeing a 2008 TV report on the case, de Jong sent anonymous notes to investigators (which were apparently ignored) and later visited the site. He concluded that Holloway—stuffed into a crawl space by van der Sloot—was buried under a staircase at Marriott's Spyglass Tower. De Jong even tried peeking inside by drilling into the hotel's floor. He also wrote to the victim's father, Dave Holloway, who's now in Aruba with a cadaver dog and investigator probing de Jong's claims. Holloway told de Jong's story to Aruba's Chief Prosecutor Peter Blanken, who dismissed the account because it failed to describe the difference in height between van der Sloot and Holloway. Van der Sloot has denied any involvement in Holloway's disappearance, Peoplenotes, and is currently serving 28 years in Peru for the murder of Stephany Flores.


Apple said...

My first question is: Is this statement using language that was asked in a question or is this statement during the free editing process?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Very good, Apple.

The quotes may be edited.

Is this the subject's first language?

What questions were asked to elicit answers? This is Apple's point.

We do not have anything to go on.

trustmeigetit said...

My comment is about her father.

This is what innocence looks like.

Their daughter is missing and her father is doing whatever he can to find her. Even if it's only her body.

Gerry and Kate... This is why we know you are guilty. Even on the night you claim Madeliene was taken you did not search. And to this day you have put your efforts not into searching but silencing those that question your involvement.

Skeptical said...

Back on March 18 there was an analysis exercise "Profiling from a Statement: What Do You Know About Someone?" Peter was working on a follow up profile. I haven't been able to read the posts as regularly lately, so if Peter has finished and published it, I probably missed it. Could someone help me locate it if it's been published. I'd like to read the conclusion.

wreyeter72 said...

Some observations - if this is indeed his actual words - he speaks in the past tense, which is expected in experiential memory. There are several instances of "and" which indicate missing information, or is it gaps in time? He uses personal pronouns firmly, taking ownership of the experience.

Anonymous said...

There's no telling what this guy saw or heard or thinks he saw or heard if he was on a mind altering drug at the time or subsequently.

However, his report should have been taken seriously and investigated, as he very well could have seen and hard those things he said he did and possibly even more.

This is just one of the problems with substance abusers; one never knows the truth about anything they say. On the other hand, you can't just rule them out either.

Red Meat said...

“I saw Joran run after Natalee. They go to a small building that is under construction. There is no lower step, so they have to climb to the landing,” he told the newspaper. “What happens after that is unclear. But something must have gone wrong, because some time later Joran comes out with Natalee in his arms. He lays her down, jumps down and pulls her up onto his shoulder. Then he throws her body on the ground.”

De Jong then saw Joran hiding the body under the building, he claims. “He digs an access into the crawl space and drags Natalee inside. After about a minute he reappears, closes the opening with sand and walks back to the gate.”

That's a lot of present tense.

Red Meat said...

They go to a small building that is under construction. There is no lower step, so they have to climb to the landing,” he told the newspaper.

I know this is different from the "we" rule about assault, but I find his use of "they" unexpected since he is clearly after her in a non- united way.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


you are paying attention!

Interesting comments.


wreyeter72 said...

Red Meat - very interesting! Peter - what can explain the man speaking in past tense in one interview and present in another about the same event? Poor journalism or something else?

trustmeigetit said...

Great point Redmeat.

I imagine telling a story about seeing someone being attacked and I think I would be more likely to say something like "he forced her into a building" or he "dragged her", "took her" etc. not "they go".

It does sound more like unity. However, I wonder if at that point she wasn't being forced. I'm not sure if maybe she initially went with him voluntarily?

Like Jorens other victim. She initially went to the hotel room with him.

I do wonder the questions asked too. LE has not been supportive and I still don't know why. I wonder if LE has not allowed a full thorough interview.

trustmeigetit said...

Recently the Prosecutor's Office received the requested information from the management of the Marriott based in Orlando.

"From this information, it becomes indisputably clear that on the 30th of May 2005, no construction or building activities were started at the location that Mr. De Jong has specifically pointed out as the spot where Natalee Holloway would have been hidden and/or buried,''

according to Angela's press release.

"More concretely: the foundation of the Spyglass Tower (that still had to be built at the time) and of the staircase of the Spyglass Tower was not in place. This means that Natalee Holloway could never have been hidden and/or buried there."

"This leads to the conclusion that the claims made by Mr. De Jong of what he saw on the night of 30th of May 2005, cannot be correct, and that his testimony, considering the afore-mentioned, does not add to the solving of this case. Further investigation (in any manner whatsoever) under the staircase of the Spyglass Tower will not lead to finding the body of Natalee Holloway"

Peter..thoughts on that statement?

It would not be the first time a prosecutor lied..

Jenna said...

English is not de Jongs first language. So tense issues could be related to that.