Forensic Thoughtprints

February 2, 2008

Decoding Joran’s Wine-Throwing Tantrum

Joran van der Sloot’s temper tantrum on January 11, 2008—when he threw wine directly in the face of investigative reporter Peter de Vries—can be decoded so that we can understand the messages indicated by such behavior, messages as revealing as those found in his written communications. If we again apply the principles of thoughtprint decoding, we can undertake “behavior decoding” and thus read his symbolic (unconscious) messages.

First let’s put the January 11 incident in context. Following his being released by Aruban authorities for lack of evidence on December 18, 2007, Joran publicly declared his wish that a trial had taken place “to prove his innocence.” Additionally, his mother, Anita, also then took up the cause of his “mistreatment.” She declared that authorities should investigate her son’s treatment as a suspect in the Holloway case. Simultaneously, a well-publicized ocean search for Natalee’s body had been going on off the coast of Aruba since December 15, 2007.

Shortly after his release in December, Joran agreed to be interviewed on a late-night Dutch television show called “Pauw & Witteman” whose panel also included investigative reporter Peter de Vries. Over the past year, De Vries had made clear to his viewers that his study of the Holloway case pointed to Joran’s guilt.

Joran’s mother and father appeared with him on the Jan. 11 program, and Anita had coached him to remain in control and make a good appearance. Joran had declared this would be his last public interview. Despite his parents’ presence and best advice, Joran simply could not control himself.

The interaction between Joran and de Vries was tense at times. After the show was over, Joran stood up as he prepared to walk off the set and suddenly picked up a glass of red wine that he had been drinking and threw it in de Vries’ face. The young man’s behavior spoke volumes. First, Joran seemed to think the cameras were off when he resorted to his hostile behavior—which again suggests his sneaky nature.  (Sources in Holland tell me the wine-throwing may have been a calculated planned act on Joran’s part—if so his unconscious intentions of confession and embarrassing himself remain the same.)

Throwing wine in de Vries’ face was a shocking, unexpected personal attack—precisely what the thoughtprint record shows Joran did to Natalee. It illustrates just how capable Joran is of suddenly striking out and how easily he would degrade someone. We couldn’t miss the anger, but we must not miss the guilt.

In throwing liquid in a person’s face (a person who represents Natalee, speaking for her and pointing the finger at him), Joran is saying, “See me throwing liquid on someone, see me throwing Natalee in the liquid, in the drink or ocean.”

Don’t forget, Joran could have expressed his frustration with de Vries in many other ways—cussed him, stood over him and intimidated him, shoved him, pushed his chair over, thrown a notebook or pencil, but he chose to throw a glass of liquid. His deeper intelligence had him choose the wine because of its symbolic implications.

As de Vries sat there helplessly with liquid dripping from his face while Joran stood over him, we also have a picture of the victim Natalee with liquid dripping from her face (she had vomited and aspirated, which led to her death in Aruba) as Joran stood over her. (Liquid dripping from her face suggests as well her tears during the assault.)  Joran also threw the wine/alcohol into de Vries eyes momentarily blinding him and incapacitating him—just as he and his two accomplices incapacitated Natalee on that fateful night in 2005. By decoding this incident a subtle step further, we see that Joran points to a head injury that Natalee experienced, namely that she became unconscious from choking, a result that is reflected in de Vries’ suddenly closed eyes. 

It is likewise easy to see that Joran wanted to blind his accuser, to prevent him from seeing the truth exactly as he blinded Natalee with alcohol to induce her into going off with the three suspects. Last but far from least, he is pointing to his own utter blindness in carrying out his stupid plan to assault Natalee, a plan which blew up in his own face. Surely, too, the fact that he was drinking before he lost control on television reveals how constantly he is on the verge of losing it, and as well a confession of how alcohol contributed to his loss of control with Natalee.

We must pay close attention to Joran’s specific body language at the moment of his abusive behavior. As he towered over his seated victim, de Vries, he shows us how he towered over a helpless prone Natalee during the sexual assault.

 

Continuing to see the symbolism in the incident, note that Joran splashed de Vries with a red liquid, red wine. So now we have blood dripping from de Vries’ face creating a crucifixion image plainly suggesting that Natalee was Joran’s victim and that her blood is all over him. Joran could have just as easily thrown a nearby glass of water on de Vries, but he chose the wine instead to make his point. This again demonstrates how the brilliant unconscious mind carefully sets the scene to make the powerful statements it wants to communicate via this show-and-tell activity from Joran. Likewise, instead of confronting de Vries man-to-man verbally, Joran throws the wine and walks away, which tells us once again that he’s a man on the run. It illustrates how he handled the entire matter by running from it, telling us that—despite his aggressive behavior and imposing size—he’s still just a scared little boy.

Indeed this television show was Joran’s trial: he was on trial for the world to see, being cross-examined by a skeptical prosecutor (de Vries), and under that pressure Joran’s true character showed itself. Down deep he wanted us to know what really happened to Natalee. And the verdict speaks for itself. All in all, his wine-throwing incident is one giant confession.

Joran knew that his father, Paulus, was there on the set standing immediately to his right as he tossed the wine in de Vries’ face. Joran is suggesting that his father was with him “all the way” and involved in the cover-up from the beginning---something the profile strikingly reveals. Note, too, Paulus’ enabling grin immediately after Joran’s outburst (while his mother’s mouth flew open in shock).  And for the record, Joran wore a hat pulled down over his eyes during the entire interview hinting that he has something to hide. Joran’s frequent anxious movements during the interview additionally suggested his discomfort and that he wasn’t telling the truth. But somewhere deep inside himself, he was most anxious because he knew that he was on the verge of a major explosion/confession.

I had previously predicted that Joran would continue to unconsciously punish himself because he had gotten away with his crime—and here nd him doing so in spades. With one quick out-of-control impulsive act, Joran speaks loudly. Police talk of the “prison of the mind,” and a guilty perpetrator can only take so much before he must try and break out of that prison constructed not from cement stones and steel bars but of his own guilt.

There is one final striking message. In the de Vries’ incident, Joran is symbolically speaking to the search boat telling the crew members that they are indeed on the right track: “See how I throw a drink—see how I threw her in the drink” and “See how Natalee’s body lies with her eyes closed covered in water.”  In his own way, Joran encourages his pursuers.

I wonder what Greta van Susteren of Fox News is thinking now after she largely vouched for Joran’s credibility during a lengthy interview with her in 2006 during which he stayed calm and tried to pass himself off as innocent.