Taken: Natalee Holloway revisits the 2005 disappearance through Beth Holloway’s account, interviews with people close to Natalee, investigators and previously unseen material. But a three-part documentary is necessarily a selected narrative. One important chapter in the wider public record deserves its own explanation: a separate investigation launched by Aruba’s Public Prosecutor in 2022 after journalist Greta Van Susteren said she had received information that might solve the case.
The prosecutor’s office published its findings on February 4, 2023. It said the investigation was conducted by Aruba’s RST investigative team with FBI cooperation. The information did not solve Natalee’s disappearance. Instead, investigators described a network of false claims, manipulated images and purported evidence that could not withstand forensic checking. This is distinct from the 2010 extortion operation featured in the Netflix series—and it is also distinct from the 2021 blouse tip discussed in other coverage of the documentary.
1. A separate Aruba-led investigation began in June 2022
In May 2022, Van Susteren publicly said she had important information that could help resolve Natalee’s disappearance. According to the Aruba Public Prosecutor’s account, that claim prompted a new investigation the following month. The RST led the work under the prosecutor’s direction, with assistance from the FBI.
The question for investigators was not simply whether the material sounded plausible. They examined whether the information was concrete and accurate enough to contribute to solving the case. Their published conclusion was direct: it did not help solve Natalee’s disappearance. The office said the journalist had instead been deceived by people who supplied false information in exchange for payment.
This matters because the 2022 inquiry was not a reopening based on a confirmed new discovery. It was an assessment of a set of claims and materials. Treating it as a breakthrough would reverse the official finding.
2. A package from Colombia contained clothing and a shoe falsely linked to Natalee
The prosecutor’s statement described a package mailed from Colombia. The sender claimed that the shoes and clothing inside had belonged to Natalee. The FBI’s forensic examination found that DNA recovered from the package did not match Natalee’s DNA or Joran van der Sloot’s DNA.
Investigators also found that one shoe was counterfeit and was probably manufactured in 2019. That detail undercut the claim that the item was connected to Natalee’s 2005 disappearance. The official statement does not say that the package contained evidence identifying another suspect or revealing where Natalee’s remains might be.
It is important not to confuse this package with the blouse story discussed in reporting about Taken: Natalee Holloway. They are separate alleged items and separate episodes. Combining them into one “DNA breakthrough” would give readers a misleading account of what investigators actually examined.
3. Some photographs were recycled from public websites
The 2022 investigation also examined photographs and videos sent to Van Susteren. The prosecutor’s office said investigators found manipulation and deception in that material. Images presented as photographs of possible people involved in Natalee’s disappearance were traced to a public Facebook page.
Even more disturbing, a photograph said to show human remains belonging to Natalee was found on the public internet. The prosecutor’s office gave a specific example: one image had been taken from a 2018 newspaper article about a garbage dump in Costa Rica. In other words, an image presented as new case evidence had an identifiable earlier public source unrelated to Natalee.
This is a useful reminder about digital evidence in high-profile missing-person cases. A photograph does not become reliable evidence because someone attaches a dramatic explanation to it. Investigators need to establish where it first appeared, whether it has been altered, who supplied it and whether it can be independently corroborated.
4. The supposed sources were not independent of one another
The prosecutor’s statement identified another problem: investigators did not find several independent sources telling the same story. Instead, the people who approached Van Susteren appeared to be connected to one another.
That finding matters because independent corroboration is one of the basic ways investigators test a lead. If several people repeat the same claim but are connected to a common source, their accounts may not represent separate confirmation. They may all be repeating one unverified story.
The official statement described the material as fraud and manipulation, possibly involving people in South America. It did not publicly identify every person involved or set out a criminal prosecution arising from the episode. The responsible way to report the finding is to describe what the prosecutor’s office said, not to speculate about identities or motives beyond that statement.
5. Investigators offered to explain their findings directly
The Aruba Public Prosecutor’s Office said Van Susteren had previously been told she would receive information about both the results and the way the investigation had been conducted. According to the office, investigators offered an extensive personal presentation, but she declined such a presentation twice. The office said it then informed her of the results by letter and also sought contact with Natalee’s parents.
This procedural detail is easy to overlook, but it helps distinguish an official investigative conclusion from a media account of a tip. The prosecutor’s office did not merely dismiss the material in a short public statement; it said investigators had examined the claims and offered to explain their work to the person who brought them forward.
How this 2022 inquiry differs from the 2010 FBI operation
The two episodes are sometimes blurred because both involved the FBI and information supposedly connected to Natalee’s remains. They were different investigations, separated by twelve years and involving different claims.
- 2010: Van der Sloot offered information about Natalee’s remains in exchange for money. The resulting U.S. federal case involved extortion and wire fraud. The Justice Department said the FBI worked with Aruban authorities and clarified that the money used in the operation was private, not FBI funds.
- 2022: Aruba’s RST, under the Public Prosecutor’s Office and with FBI cooperation, checked information and materials supplied through Van Susteren. The prosecutor later said the claims were fraudulent or manipulated and did not solve the disappearance.
The 2010 federal case and the 2022 tip review should not be presented as one continuous sting operation. The Justice Department’s records explain the charges in the earlier case; Aruba’s prosecutor explains the later forensic and source-verification findings.
What the public record does—and does not—establish
The 2022 statement is a valuable primary source because it comes from the authority that led the inquiry. It establishes that the RST and FBI examined the submitted material, that the DNA in the Colombia package did not match Natalee or van der Sloot, that the shoe was counterfeit, and that images and purported sources were unreliable.
It does not establish where Natalee’s remains are. It does not identify the people behind every false claim. And it does not mean that every future tip should be dismissed. The prosecutor’s office said serious leads would continue to be investigated. The distinction is between remaining open to credible information and treating unverified claims as discoveries.
That is the wider lesson that sits alongside the Netflix documentary: in a case marked by years of uncertainty, the careful testing of evidence is as important as the search for it. New claims can create hope, but only verifiable material can move an investigation forward.
Frequently asked questions
What investigation did Aruba launch in 2022?
In June 2022, Aruba’s Public Prosecutor’s Office led an RST investigation with FBI cooperation to assess information journalist Greta Van Susteren said could help solve Natalee Holloway’s disappearance.
Did the FBI find Natalee Holloway’s DNA in the package from Colombia?
No. Aruba’s prosecutor said the DNA found in the package did not match Natalee Holloway or Joran van der Sloot.
Was the shoe in the package really Natalee’s?
The prosecutor’s statement said the shoe was counterfeit and probably manufactured in 2019. The sender’s claim that the clothing and shoes belonged to Natalee was not substantiated.
Were the photographs of Natalee’s remains authentic?
Investigators found that images presented as evidence had been manipulated or taken from public sources. The prosecutor cited a photograph of alleged human remains that came from a 2018 newspaper article about a Costa Rica dump.
Did the 2022 investigation solve Natalee’s disappearance?
No. The Aruba Public Prosecutor’s Office said the information did not contribute to solving the disappearance and described the material as false information supplied through fraud and manipulation.
Sources and further reading
- Aruba Public Prosecutor’s Office: Official February 4, 2023 statement on the 2022 investigation
- Netflix Tudum: Background on Taken: Natalee Holloway
- U.S. Department of Justice: 2010 joint statement on the separate extortion investigation
Editorial note: This article focuses on the separate 2022 Aruba-led tip investigation. It does not treat the 2022 findings as a new solution to Natalee’s disappearance or conflate them with the 2010 federal extortion case.