December 11, 2006


Justice Jacob “Bob” Wit

Jacob “Bob” Wit was the judge present at the van der Sloot property on June 15, 2005 who reduced the scope of that search to only the apartment occupied by Joran van der Sloot. His actions that day lead us to wonder why he would risk his career by aiding his good friend, Paulus. Why did Justice Wit wait for the prosecutor at the van der Sloot home to limit her search areas? Why didn’t he simply make that ruling from the bench in the courtroom? Why did he feel the need to do that from the van der Sloot home?

Justice Wit is a judge for the Caribbean Court of Justice. As such, he has a stringent Code of Ethics he must follow at all times – both in and outside the courtroom, as you will read below.

What could his relationship with Paulus van der Sloot have provided this judge in order for him to put his career on the line?

This is a short list of the Code of Ethics Justice Wit obviously violated. We wonder if the Caribbean Court of Justice is aware of Justice Wit’s actions?


This code was violated by Wit as seen by his presence at the van der Sloot home prior to the searchers arriving. Both Ben (Voc)King and Paulus van der Sloot are members of the legal profession.

1.3 A judge shall avoid close personal association with individual members of the legal profession, particularly those who practice in the judge’s court, where such association might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

Justice Wit used not his home, but that of a suspect in a criminal investigation as a meeting place for himself, said suspect, and a prosecution official.

1.4 A judge shall avoid the use of the judge’s residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients or other members of the legal profession in circumstances that might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge.

Was there any official reason given, in writing, for Wit’s verbal order at the van der Sloot home for curbing the areas of the search? Or did he merely do this to help his friend Paulus?

1.9 A judge shall not allow the judge’s family, social or other relationships improperly to influence the judge’s judicial conduct and judgment as a judge.

Was the mere presence of Justice Wit at the van der Sloot property enough to dissuade Karin Janssen from arguing the merits of her search warrant granted by the Joint Court? Did Wit use the prestige of his office to intimidate the searchers?

1.10 A judge shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge, a member of the judge’s family or of anyone else, nor shall a judge permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties.


Justice Wit’s conduct here was certainly not above reproach – as even the acting Chief of Police was distraught at the limits set by Wit on their search of the van der Sloot property.

3.1 A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of reasonable, fair-minded and informed persons.

Wit’s actions assured that not only would justice not be done, but failed to even attempt to create the appearance of justice.

3.2 The bahaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

How could Justice Wit ever again require others to uphold this Code of Ethics, when he himself ignored them to aid his friend and colleague, Paulus van der Sloot?

3.3 A judge, in addition to observing personally the standards of this Code, shall encourage and support their observance by others.


By reducing the scope of the search of the property of his friend and colleague, Justice Wit blatantly disregarded all thoughts of bias, favour, and prejudice.

4.1 A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice.

Not only did Justice Wit lose the confidence of the public with his curtailing of the search, he lost the confidence of the Aruban prosecutor, and law enforcement – as evidenced by the public statements made by Chief Dompig in October 2005.

4.2 A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

Justice Wit should have disqualified and excused himself from making any rulings in this case, as his actions showed he was clearly unable to decide any matters in this case impartially.

4.5 A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person might believe that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.

Paulus van der Sloot, being an attorney and a substitute Judge, continues to be a member of the same fraternal body as Justice Wit. This fact alone should have caused Justice Wit to disqualify himself from making any decisions in this case. They both served on the Joint Court at the same time.

4.5.1 A judge must be sensitive to the fact that fraternal bodies are shrouded in mystery and clothed with a perception of secrecy and of providing unconditional assistance to members in times of need, trouble and distress. Persons who are not members of such bodies are likely to conclude that a litigant, belonging to the same fraternal body as a judge, enjoys an unfair advantage. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the impartiality of the judge might reasonably be questioned.

There has been no transparency regarding Justice Wit’s decision to limit the scope of the search. Quite the contrary. His actions even took the Prosecutor by surprise, as this decision by Wit was only made known to Janssen the day of the search, when she arrived to execute the warrant.

4.5.2 A judge should therefore recognize that transparency assists in combating corruption and suspicions, and he or she should encourage judicial colleagues and the court staff to assist in promoting the intrinsic merits of transparent conduct and infusing public confidence in the role, functions and operations of the court.

4.6 A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceedings in which there might be a reasonable perception of a lack of impartiality of the judge including, but not limited to, instances where:

Did Justice Wit become aware that evidence could very well have been obtained through the forensic search of the van der Sloot home and property? Is that the reason he tied the hands of the Prosecutor?

4.6.1 The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;


Did Justice Wit have discussions with Paulus van der Sloot, unbeknownst to the Prosecutor and law enforcement officials, that led him to understand the involvement of his friend in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway?

5.7 Without authority of law and notice to, and consent of, the parties and an opportunity to respond, a judge shall not engage independent, personal investigation of the facts of a case before him or her.


7.1 Institutions and procedures for the implementation of this Code shall provide a publicly credible means for considering and determining complaints against judges. This is to be pursued without prejudice or hindrance to the universally recognized and hallowed principle of judicial independence.

7.2 By the very nature of their judicial office, judges are not, except in accordance with the law, accountable for their decisions to any organ or entity within the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice or elsewhere, but are accountable for their conduct to institutions that are specifically established to implement and administer this Code.

7.3 The implementation of this Code shall take into account the legitimate needs of a judge, by reason of the nature of the judicial office, to be afforded protection from vexatious or unsubstantiated accusations and due process of law in the resolution of complaints against the judge.

We can’t help but wonder what the Caribbean Court of Justice would have to say about Justice Wit’s actions in the Holloway case.

Has the institution charged with implementing this Code been made aware of Justice Wit’s conduct?

Perhaps they should be…

We will not let up until this victim and her family receive justice.

-Natalee’s Freebirds


Anonymous said...

Justice Jacob “Bob” Wit


I heard this Dutch ass is changing
is name to 'Half-Wit'.

Michelle said...

How about 'dip-shit'?

Anonymous said...

I heard the trucker said dutch it when he got up went to the men room. I am a female trucker, I feel good about it. He is the man.

Anonymous said...

Half-Wit is soon to be:
(as they say in Holland: 'in-deep- shit'.

Auntiem said...

He is a "Wit less" "Nit Wit"!!!

Andie said...

BRAVO! Thank you again, Natalee's Freebirds!


Anonymous said...

The following is a critique by Ramm(his own site) regarding the document, CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION INHIBITED
SEARCH FOR NATALEE HOLLOWAY, compiled by "Natalee's Freebirds".


2. Judge Jacob Wit

In this little story she (Michelle that is) asks herself a few questions. A few questions and assertions are posted that show complete ignorance of dutch law (something she could have avoided if she would read that excellent forum of Blogs For Natalee) and of course repeating lies and rumors for which no evidence exists.

Here is the most important question she asks herself (quote from the above article):

"Why did Justice Wit wait for the prosecutor at the van der Sloot home to limit her search areas? Why didn’t he simply make that ruling from the bench in the courtroom? Why did he feel the need to do that from the van der Sloot home?"

Why indeed is not that difficult an answer to give. BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AT THE SCENE OF THE SEARCH. Bob Wit (Jacob Wit) was the "rechter commissaris" in this case (examining judge/magistrate). In the dutch legal system, the DA requests the tools (tools that violate civil rights of suspects like house-searches, taps, impounding items) that she feels are vital to cracking/solving the case and bringing the guilty to trial. To safeguard the rights of all citizens in the Netherlands, the DA has to convince the examining judge to allow her to use those tools.

Like with the house search of the van der Sloot residence, Karin Janssen had to ask the court if she was allowed to search the residence in Oranjestad. The judge then has to agree or disagree with the permission to search, in this case he agreed to the search.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!! that is not the end of the duties of the examining judge. He has to be present at the house-search to lead that search. He does this in the company of the court-clerk whose duty it is to document the house-search. One of the things the judge has to decide is what is going to be searched and what is allowed to be seized from the property.


Ramm, I can assume that a judge was present at the homes of the security guards when they were awaken from their sleep and arrested. I can assume that there was a judge present to oversee the seizing of items, the conficating of vehicles and the conducting of a forensic search.

Michelle said...

Ramm get out your reading glasses. I DID NOT write the article. A group of individuals called NATALEE'S FREEBIRDS wrote it.

Anonymous said...

Ramm, you lost all credibility with everyone except BFN when you mistranslated the Julia document.

Waddle your fat ass back over to the couch and lay down with your cat.

Your deliberate attempts to derail forward progress in this case are becoming more and more transparent.

Rammstein said...

1. I did not incorrectly translate the Julia-document. I corrected the faulty translation done by someone else. Get your facts straight.

2. Yes, you are right Michelle, it was the freebirds (AKA Deetch et al). I will correct it on my blog.

3. Almost certainly a judge was present at that search too. It is in the laws that they must be present during house-searches.

Anonymous said...

Ramm, would you please reference and quote the Dutch law which states that a judge must be present during a search where a warrant has been issued. Thank you.

Rammstein said...

Art. 110. Wetboek van strafrecht

1. De rechter-commissaris kan, op vordering van de officier van justitie en in het gerechtelijk vooronderzoek tevens ambtshalve, ter inbeslagneming elke plaats doorzoeken. Hij kan zich daarbij doen vergezellen van bepaalde door hem aangewezen personen. De vordering vermeldt het strafbare feit en indien bekend de naam of anders een zo nauwkeurig mogelijke omschrijving van de verdachte, alsmede de feiten of omstandigheden waaruit blijkt dat de wettelijke voorwaarden voor uitoefening van de bevoegdheid zijn vervuld.
2. Het doorzoeken van plaatsen overeenkomstig het bepaalde in het eerste lid geschiedt onder leiding van de rechter-commissaris in tegenwoordigheid van de officier van justitie of, in geval van diens verhindering, van een hulpofficier van justitie.

Art. 110. penal law code book 2

1. The examining judge can, on the request of the district attorney and in the course of a judicial pre-inquest in his function as judge, search any place in order to confiscation. He can choose to be accompanied by specific people he chooses. The request mentions the criminal offense/act and if known the name or an as accurate as possible description of the suspect, as well as the facts or circumstances which show that the legal requirements for the judge to exercise this power.
2. The searching of places, as mentioned in the first section of this article happens under the leadership of the examining judge, in the presence of the district attorney, or when the DA is unable to attend, an assistant district attorney.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ramm. This is the provision of Dutch law that I am also referring to.

1. The examining judge can, on the request of the district attorney and in the course of a judicial pre-inquest in his function as judge, search any place in order to confiscation.

2. The searching of places, as mentioned in the first section of this article happens under the leadership of the examining judge, in the presence of the district attorney, or when the DA is unable to attend, an assistant district attorney.


I respectfully disagree with you that these two provision imply that a judge is "required" to be present at the scene where a search has been warranted. My understanding is - if a judge is to be present, it must be at the request of the DA or a DA official must be present.

Also, the provisions you quoted do not imply that a judge has the authorization to reduce the scope of an authorized warrant at the scene of the search.

My understanding of the provisions - If Bob Witt had a legal right to be at the Van der Sloot residence while the search warrant was being excercised -

1. Karin Janssen (DA) would have had to requested Bob Witt's presence.

2. Karin Janssen (DA) or her assistance would have had to be present.

Ramm, there is nothing wrong with Dutch law. The problem is that it was never applied accordingly in the Natalee Holloway case and, therefore, justice did not stand a chance of prevailing.

Deb357 said...

I'm sorry but this does not say that the Judge must be there. It says
"happens under the leadership of the examing Judge". To me that's saying under the Judges court order as lead examing Judge to the case.

In the presence of the DA or the DA Assistant. Not in the presence of the examining Judge.

See the difference? The Judge does NOT need to be there nor does it say the Judge MUST be there. Only the DA or Assistant DA presence is needed at the sight, under the court order to search from the lead examing Judge.

Sometimes people like to twist words to make them appear what they really aren't to confuse.

Rammstein said...

Well, there are more laws indicating/forcing a judge to be present at any house-search. I will have to place them here later because I need to get to work.

Anonymous said...

Great work Freebirds!!
And FINALLY!!! Ramm called on his baloney!! THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

Big difference Ramm in what the Provision states and YOUR interpretation..."He was SUPPOSED" to be there.

Some of us are really getting tired of your attempt at insulting our intelligence!!

And PLEASE!!!! "Almost certainly" at the homes of the security guards??!! WOW..that was your best bag of bullshit yet!!

Gotta run and get my shit boots.

You do more damage than the nuts at the hate sites!! You PRETEND that you are for Justice for Natalee...but the majority of us see right through your BS Ramm!!

Sorry for the language Michelle...but this guy's arrogance, twisting of the facts, negativity and BS has finally got the best of me!!

Keep up the great work Michelle!!

Auntiem said...

OMG People here have finally put Ramm, the Dutch Couch Boy, in his place. No deletions, no banning, no screams of "Stop the Hatred"!!! I love it!!!!! You allow "double-talk" here, Michelle, but, you give the sane-minded the freedom to "untwist" it and point out where those of the Aruban persuasion, have decided that Americans are too dumb to not only understand Dutch law, but also too dumb to see when it is being misconstrued, misinterpreted and flagrantly misused.