One Simple Question

We are continually told by legal representatives defending the Van der sloots that it takes hard evidence, not suspicion to prove guilt.

Why then is the same concept not applied to determining if Natalee is dead?

How does Aruba, by the same standard, know Natalee is dead? What hard evidence do they have that she even existed after Carlos n Charlies?

No stories, theories, gut feelings or statistics.

But why is this simple question never posed to representatives in Aruba?

So the very same witness can confess to selling drugs as a way to accuse Natalee of a crime, buying drugs? These are manufactured and coached stories.

I believe if Aruba or their representatives can be held to answer this, does anything else matter?

This is the essence of this case.

If you understand the importance of this you can narrow the reasons why Aruba knows Natalee is dead.

They had evidence and then they didn't.

It's time to stop the attacks, the theories and conspiracy mongering and focus on this simple element.

Without coming to conclusions, what happened will become very clear. Dompig and Jacobs actions will light up.

The lack of evidene is the evidence.