I just sincerely believe that there is more to this than a cut and dried assumption that he killed her. I know it isn't a popular view, but I have seen enough dishonesty and deception in my life to know that things are not always as they appear; and when very important things appear to be too simple, there is often more to it than meets the eye. I had no intention of showing disrespect for this woman's life and I would be the first to say the man should be convicted and removed from society if he is guilty. The problem is, he will likely be convicted and removed from society whether he is guilty or not. The system and the society simply can't manage a lot of things in a just way when there is too much social sentiment against a person. An example would be what happened to O.J. Simpson. To me, a big part of justice has to do with truth, and with fair and equal treatment under the law regardless of peoples beliefs about us. To many people, the truth isn't nearly as important as punishment of people who they think are bad people. I always keep the element of doubt open when someone is universally believed to be guilty, because I have personally been a victim of accusations which were not true, yet nobody believed me. So, you can't convince me that just because everyone is clearly convinced that this man is a murderer, he must be a murderer. History is full of examples where patently incorrect beliefs prevailed. It is perfectly clear to anyone who goes outside and looks around that the world is flat.

As I have told people before, I am not sure we will ever know whether O.J. Simpson killed Nicole, and we may never know if this man killed Natalie. Cases like these serve as a sort of measure of our social attitudes, in a way like the ink blot tests tell psychiatrists what is going on with the patient. What we see in the ambiguous picture is more about us than the picture. What we see in cases like this is more about us than about the truth. If we knew the truth, Joran van der Sloot would either be unknown or he would be in prison. It is the uncertainty which drives the interest, and it is the uncertainty which draws out our prejudices. It is all about who and when we are willing to give benefit of doubt that tells what we believe about other people simply based on who they are. It is about the assumptions we make based on who the person is and what they are like, rather than based on any knowable facts. Joran van der Sloot is a privileged white male. Most of have us little choice in who we are, or whether we are male or female. Yet those categories come with prejudices and stereotypes. When those prejudices and stereotypes spill over from simply affecting the hassles of everyday living and into driving incredibly important life and death decisions, I think we owe it to ourselves to back off a little and to try to understand why we believe what we believe. Let's say that the last person to be with Natalie was one of her girlfriends that she was with at the casino. Let's say the friend gave the same story that van der Sloot gave. Chances are she would have never been a suspect. Our gender and our social class have tremendous effects on what people believe about us without evidence, yet we have no control over those things. When those stereotypes lead to injustice, it is a human tragedy.

The reason I hang out at places like TalkLeft is because I tend to give people who are accused of crimes the benefit of the doubt. I think doing so is the right thing to do. It is not because I think criminals should go free, or that I do not care about victims. It is more about how I view justice, and how I think we should use the incredible power of the state. It is because the system through which we decide guilt is imperfect and is always much more powerful than the people accused of crimes. It is also because people too easily come to make assumptions about us because of who they think we are and how they classify us in society, even when we are not who they think we are at all.

If there is no proof van der Sloot killed Natalie, then I am willing to assume he did not. If he did not, then he probably didn't kill this latest victim, either. I have stated elsewhere that this looks too simple to be true. It looks like it very well could be a frame. My willingness to give benefit of doubt is a fundamental ethical conviction which I have, and I realize it is not widely shared. As I say, it is personal experience of being accused of things I didn't do which led me to understand the horror of being thought guilty of terrible things when you are not, especially when those beliefs are based mostly on the assumptions that people make about gender and class.

The truth is that I have my prejudices, and I know where they come from. They come from personal experience, and the knowledge that appearances can be very deceiving in matters of guilt and innocence. I also think the system should not have as its goal retribution for victims. When it isn't clear who committed a crime, I don't think anyone is "owed" a sacrifice. I am willing to live with a certain amount of danger of becoming a crime victim if the only alternative is to have an equal probability of becoming a victim of false accusation. Criminal justice is like drug therapy for disease. We want to fight the disease, but it doesn't make sense when the probability that the treatment will kill us overcomes the probability that the disease will kill us. We have to keep the strength of the drug under control or it serves no purpose. That means many people will die of the disease, but if we make the medicine too strong, an equal number will die from the cure. Unfortunately, life is dangerous, and there is risk. But that does not mean we can reduce or eliminate that risk by simply removing the assumption of innocence based on our intuition that someone is guilty. If we do, the cure becomes worse than the disease.

A piano could fall out of a passing airplaine onto your head the next time you leave your house, too.

His string of lies happened long before anybody ever interviewed him.  And if he decided to lie and deceive the traumatized parents of this girl because he was mad that Nancy Grace on her little-seen cable show back in the U.S. was saying mean things about him for ratings, let's just say I'd be surprised.

Lima, Peru to Chile

Driving directions to Chile
3,617 km - about 2 days 12 hours
Suggested routes
Panamericana Sur and Ruta 5 Norte
3,617 km 2 days 12 hours

Panamericana Sur
4,783 km 3 days 3 hours