And with six short words one can only speculate the fire storm of emails that Greta Van Susteren received over the weekend. By the looks of the GretaWire it looks like someone was busy reading and replying to the ones that could be reprinted. One response is as follows from the GretaWire:
I did not say I believe him. What I said is that I am “inclined to believe him… that this is an ongoing investigation and a new fact could arise which would change all my views.” I don’t believe anyone until this is solved. No one should. I have my eyes wide open but if someone provides me information that is worthy of belief (consistent with known evidence), I am inclined to believe it but I leave the door wide open in case other evidence points at guilt. That is what I said (“get that potato out of your ear!”) Backstabbing arises if I am intellectually dishonest. A criminal investigation is not about picking sides, it is about trying to get the facts. Beth knows that I want to solve this case Ã¢â‚¬” but we need to make sure we get the truth, whatever it is. She wants the truth. I want the truth.
We would agree that one must keep an open mind, but that does not mean one forget what has been said to that point in time by a suspect. One first must understand why the suspect wanted to do the interview in the first place before keeping an open mind. What was Joran’s motive? The following comment still puzzles many who have emailed and taken issue with Greta:
I have my eyes wide open but if someone provides me information that is worthy of belief (consistent with known evidence) …
Someone who had admittedly lied to his parents, police, prosecutors, the Holloway’s & Twitty’s, journalists and most likely you Greta; is now suddenly “worthy of belief”? The reasons for the lies make no sense either other than if you were guilty of hiding something. Thus, many are puzzled by what you state as information being consistent with the evidence. What is more likely is having nine months to create a story that plays to what the known evidence is. Why else would there be lies all a long the way and know all of a sudden the truth?
Being a credible witness is something that is earned. Greta being a lawyer hardly needs to be reminded of such a fact. Which makes it all the more curious why she would ever make such a statement as “I am inclined to believe him”. What Joran stated in this interview are hardly examples of “if someone provides me information that is worthy of belief (consistent with known evidence)”.
The motive behind this entire interview and marketing campaign by Joran and team Sloot is to shift the focus away from him and to Deepak and Satish. Just because Joran’s tale attempts to fit a time-line does not make it true. What makes no sense is the comment that what Joran said was somehow (consistent with known evidence). What he said is pretty much not consistent with anything that he has said before. What it conveniently does is implicates the Kalpoes and makes Joran look like a victim and a saint.
No one is saying that the Kalpoes may not be implicated, but Joran Van der Sloot did nothing in his 3 part interview with Greta that would change ones mind. What he did was change his story again. What he did was come up with tales to explain away certain circumstances. Most of it reminded many of lame excuses that defense attorneys come up with to explain away a problem their client has.
Who lies to go to jail? Then in there just does not come clean with the truth? They wait for a MSM interview to suddenly let the world know the truth? Hardly. For someone who states he wants this case solved because its the only way he will be cleared, Joran Van der Sloot certainly has a peculiar way of showing his intentions by refusing to talk to the investigators and prosecutors under oath.
What does that tell you regarding someone, “worthy of belief”?
Read the rest at GretaWire