This guy murders a prominent Peruvian’s daughter. They got video tape of him and her entering the hotel room. Then, him leaving alone. They got a confession. This guy is going going to rot in a Peruvian prison. He might even meet a nasty accident in there.
Why is the US wasting valuable resources pursuing a secondary case? It’s not like our system isn’t already backed up with thousands of other cases.
I see this like I shoplifted a hunting knife from Walmart. I go home and kill my neighbor with the knife. It’s sort of dumb to pursue a shop lifting charge isn’t it? Focus on the important stuff.
There’s not a chance in hell that Van der Sloot will ever be extradited to the US on a fraud charge. The Peruvian’s would be deeply insulted if we even asked. He’s now Peru’s problem. Let them handle it.
So what’s the plan? Hold a mock trial without Van der Sloot? Get some cheap publicity for the prosecutor?
Because every American, not just Natalee Holloway, is worth our society’s efforts to pursue justice. The same reason we want Roman Polanski returned to US soil. Justice should not have a time limit.
I hope the Peruvians do not keep him in better conditions than Peruvian inmates.
I’ve followed the Natalee Holloway case since the beginning.
I hope Beth gets a front row seat in the Peruvian trial. She will finally see this scumbag in shackles and put on trial. Beth will get some measure of justice. It’s a shame a second woman had to die before this vermin was caught.
But, holding a trial in the US for fraud? When the defendant isn’t present?
That smells like a prosecutor that wants to make a political name for himself. Maybe run for a bigger office.
The extortion sting was started before he killed the Peruvian woman. Given that they have strong extortion case, they should proceed. What if he is acquitted of the Peruvian woman’s murder? No matter how unlikely it is, it could happen.
The question is if the expense is justified, in light of what it will actually add to his punishment. At least I think that’s what the OP’s asking. Best case scenario, it adds nothing to his punishment because he never gets out (assuming he’s guilty*). But if he gets aquitted, or convicted of a lesser charge, then instead of being released, he gets driven to the American embassy to begin his flight to an American jail.
I’d have to know more about what it actually costs and how solid the case is against him to have an opinion on this case, but symbolic justice that doesn’t actually protect anybody is a legitimate area to look for cost containment, IMHO.
*I think he is, but due process is in all our best interests.
I don’t know that the expense of a grand jury indictment was all that onerous considering the $25k that was spent bribing him and the money used on the investigation prior to the Peruvian woman’s murder. Certainly the Feds spent money to prepare for the grand jury and then the government paid for the trial itself, but that has to be a fraction of what was already spent.
There are two additional points to consider:
When the case was first reported, the sentence for a murder in Peru did not seem very long. Even if he is convicted, there will come a time in his life when he will be free and available for prosecution.
Doesn’t a grand jury indictment have some significance with statute of limitations? Isn’t the indictment useful for ‘locking in’ the ability to prosecute someone at a much later time?