I think the recent case of the runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks, can shed some light on the Natalee Holloway case.

 

If you recall, John Wilbanks, Jennifer's fiancee, was the prime suspect in the immediate aftermath of her disappearance.  And for good reason.  One, John was the last to see her as she was at his apartment shortly before disappearing.  Two, boyfriends and husbands often hurt or kill their women.  The police wanted to give John a lie detector test.  He was initially reluctant, probably because he feared a false positive.  But within a very short time he cooperated and was thereafter ruled out as a suspect.  His behavior is indicative of innocence.  There was no reason for him not to be cooperative since he had nothing to do with her disappearance and wanted to do everything he could to help find her or find out what had happened to her.  As I wrote in a previous post:

 

".....if someone is missing and you have nothing to do with it, even if you were last seen with the person, you tell the truth.  I think that is the natural human response.  If you know you didn't do anything wrong, you cooperate with the authorities by telling them what you know.  One reason is that you are innocent and believe that that will come to light when you tell the truth since everything that is discovered in the future will be consistent with your innocence, since you are in fact innocent.  Second, if you know this person who is missing, you would likely want to do everything you could to help her be found or at least for it to be discovered what happened to her, since you would likely be genuinely concerned about her and her family."

 

Now contrast that with Joran van der Sloot's behavior.  He's been changing his story, he's not really saying much, he's got a lawyer, etc..... 

 

The contrast, then, between the behavior of John Wilbanks, on the one hand, and Joran van der Sloot on the other is strong circumstantial evidence that Joran is guilty of some wrong doing.  If you are innocent, you behave like John Wilbanks did, cooperating with the authorities, while of course taking some precautions.  

 

Alot of people are wary of circumstantial evidence because it is something short of a "proof".  There is always the possibility that, while all the circumstantial facts are true, the inference drawn from them is not.  So, in this case, perhaps Joran is changing his story and being uncooperate because he is terrified.  Maybe he really is innocent, he left Natalee at the beach having done no harm to her, which I believe is his current story.  But he's terrified because of the severity of the charges and this fear is causing him to act suspiciously.  Certainly that is a possibility.  

 

But we are right to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence all the time.  Ladies, if your man said he was at work but you have reliable testimony that he wasn't; if you occasionally get phone calls from strange women who hang up when they hear your voice or find out who you are; if you see a receipt for women's lingerie from Nordstrom's which you never received; if he comes home with lipstick on his clothes, smelling like women's perfume..... I have news for you: he is cheating on you.  Now, it is all circumstantial evidence.  Maybe the lingerie was for his sister, the lipstick and perfume was from an awkward situation at work, the calls were just wrong numbers and he stepped out of work for an hour or two and your witness crossed paths with him.  But probably not.   As Ward Fearnside writes in About Thinking (1980): "Circumstances are like the strands of a cable.  Each single circumstance standing alone may be weak, yet when the circumstances are woven together they may fasten a conclusion with enormous strength" (333).