As we revisit the translated police report of the conversation that was secretly recorded by the ALE some rather interesting post scripts play out. In reading these transcripts, they hardly exonerate Joran Van der Sloot as a suspect as his attorney Joe Tacopina has stated. Also, it is peculiar and convenient that Joe Tacopina would accuse someone else of leaking these documents to the media. Tacopina has gone on record as stating Jossy Mansur leaked the information. Which brings a question to mind, why would he care? If these documents, as he claims, benefit his client one would think that Tacopina would be thrilled with Jossy, not vindictive. That, however, is hardly the case.
Let’s review some of the more telling and interesting comments made by the three suspects. They hardly show anyone of them to be presented in a clear light and innocent. If anything, they provide more questions and suspicion on the three.
There have been many rumors to the fact that Paulus Van der Sloot helped the Kalpoe’s get an attorney and met with them and discussed the case in the infancy of this investigation. We know hear from Joran Van der Sloot’s own mouth that this was the case. Paulus did indeed help the Kalpoe’s attain council. One wondered what other information he provided to all three suspects with regards to how to conduct themselves in jail while being interrogated.
So would this mean that the conversation that Deepak Kalpoe had with Mickey John in jail is true as well seeing that Deepak stated that the story of the Holiday Inn was made up by the VDS family? Seems that there was much conversation between the three suspects prior to their arrest. Deepak did also speak to Abraham Jones and explained that the HI story was a lie. So what else that Deepak referenced was true as well.
J says to D: My friend, the only thing my father wanted to do was to help you. J says to D: My father only wanted to help you. My father even arranged a lawyer for you. J says to D: And this is how you pay him back. J says to D (angry): I have to give you both a klap/wanta [punch in the face?]
Do not forget what Mickey John said to Greta Van Susteren in a June 29, 2005 interview following his release from jail.
VAN SUSTEREN: The father, too?
JOHN: All of them. They made up…
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he specifically say — Deepak specifically say to you the father was part of that?
JOHN: Deepak told me that he and the family sit down and they made up the story.
VAN SUSTEREN: So family and not father?
JOHN: Well, I don’t know who the family consists of. But I know the father was involved, according to him. They made up the story, and they say that they didn’t drop the girl off, because they said they would give the police something to (INAUDIBLE) when somebody is missing in Aruba, they would find them a few days later by a crack house or with some beach bum or something.
In this heated exchange between Joran Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers a rather eye opening comment is made by Joran, “J says to the brothers: Same as they control me, they control you too.” Just who is Joran referring to as “controls” him and the Kalpoes? The three had stated that they lied about dropping Natalee at the Holiday Inn; however, what would possess the three to continue to lie while they were in jail? As Satish states, “With lies there is no proof.”
PROOF OF WHAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION. Proof of what actually happened to Natalee Holloway? The fact that the three continue to perpetrate lies, even while in jail is telling. The need to lie in order for there to be “no proof” and just who is Joran referencing as to “who controls them”?
J says to the brothers: Half of what you said isn’t the f****** truth.
J says to the brothers: That’s going to show in time.
J says to the brothers: Same as they control me, they control you too.
S says to J: About us, about us. They can find proof, but not about you.
S says to J: With lies there is no proof.
Much has been made of the comment from Joran Van der Sloot, “And I’ll laugh if they find the girl alive.” Somehow this is to presume innocence. Joran did not say, I will laugh (WHEN). He said I will laugh (IF). There is a big difference. By using the word, “if”, Joran is almost making a statement like, they (ALE) will never find her and if they did I would laugh.
Also Deepak’s reference to Joran in that, “I want them to find the girl” and that “You’re going to say shit about me in regards to the girl, that I buried the girl at the Fisherman’s Hut” is rather telling as well. It could easily been determined from Deepak’s point of view that he felt Joran was spreading lies to the police that Deepak buried Natalee. Deepak’s reference to wanting to find Natalee may in fact be that Deepak knows that it was Joran who got rid of Natalee’s body in some other location and that by finding it elsewhere would prove Joran was responsible and not Deepak.
Is Deepak making a vale reference to the fact that maybe the fisherman’s hut story and leaving Natalee on the beach is a false story? After all three fisherman claim that they saw no one that night. Deepak’s train of thought is almost, if they find Natalee’s body in another location other than where Joran accuses Deepak of burying her, that will prove Joran is guilty.
D says to J: You think the girl doesn’t have anything on, you’re going to see who, who f***/coy (the last part could not be heard well).
J says to D: We will see.
J says to D: You know when I’m going to laugh; when I give you a wanta [punch?] in the face.
J says to D: And I’ll laugh if they find the girl alive, f*** you.
J says to the brothers: I know very well that you’re scared.
J says to the brothers: If you did something bad to the girl, then we will see.
S says to J: I’m not scared.
S says to J: What do I have to be scared about?
D says to J: I want them to find the girl.
D says to J: You’re going to say shit about me in regards to the girl, that I buried the girl at the Fisherman’s Hut.J says to D: Who said anything about a burial, I didn’t say anything about a burial.
D says to J: You declared that.
D says to J: Stop with the bullshit.
Joran’s next statement goes directly to the fact that many believe that Paulus Van der Sloot told his son from the beginning how to act, what to say. Sure Joran may serve some time in jail, but that is much different that 15 years.
J says to the brothers: That’s your problem.
J says to the brothers: If they find the girl, then they will see the shit.
D says to J: 8 more days and I’m going home, I guarantee you this 1000 per cent.
J says to D: We will see.
D says to J: You don’t give a shit about your family members.
J says to D: The only thing I can think about is my family, I am doing what my family told me to do.
Then comes the infamous “no body, no crime” comment. It has been discussed since the beginning of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway whether Paulus Van der Sloot had made the comment of “no body, no crime.” It had been denied. The wide spread discussion on this topic has been on-going from the outset and puzzling at best that a “judge in training” would not only be allowed to provide his son with legal advice, but the Kalpoe’s as well.
“The father talked to the boys and told them that without a body, there wouldn’t be a case.” Lead prosecutor Caren Janssen
“I explained to them the procedures … so that they would not panic,” he said to Dutch TV Nova. “That was sufficient for the prosecutor to suspect that I was an accomplice.”
But lead prosecutor Caren Janssen says her investigators have proof the father-son talk went a lot further.
Also heard through an interpreter, she told Dutch TV Nova, “The father talked to the boys and told them that without a body, there wouldn’t be a case. And that is something that, possibly, we can’t rule it out, has played an important role in the way the boys told their stories.”
Paul van der Sloot, a judge in training in Aruba, gave his 17-year-old son Joran van der Sloot and two Surinamese brothers legal advice the day after 18-year-old Natalee Holloway disappeared, District Attorney Caren Janssen told MSNBC in an interview.
“They spoke about the situation that when there is no body you don’t have a case, and that was already in the first day after the disappearance,” Janssen said.
From CBS News, Aruba Suspect’s Parents Speak Out, Paul Van der Sloot denies that they are hiding anything and that they have always told Joran to tell the truth, (Video available). If this is the case then why did Joran continue to lie even after being arrested?
Natalee’s mother, Beth Holloway Twitty, says she’s convinced Joran is guilty and that Paul, a one-time judge in training, is helping Joran get away with it.
Paul denies it, saying, “We are not hiding anything. We are telling the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And we’ve always told Joran to tell the truth.”
Aruba Father Denies Charges (CBS) The father of one of three teenage suspects in the Aruba case has denied that he told the boys that there is no case when there is no body. CBS News’ Kelly Cobiella reports.
Paul Van der Sloot also went on to make the following statement regarding his arrest.
Paulus van der Sloot: Together with the fact that I allegedly instructed the boys, Deepak, Satish and Joran what they should do, say or do, in case of a possible apprehension. And indeed, I have, when I foresaw that they could go from witness to suspect, explained them the procedure, with the intention that they will not panic. But, also that was enough for the prosecutor’s office to suspect me of complicity.
Also in a July 18, 2005 Scarborough Country interview with Dave Holloway, Natalee’s father references the meeting that he had with Paulus Van der Sloot where Paulus denied making the “no body, no crime” comment.
Dave Holloway also told us that Paulus Van Der Sloot, the father, denies ever telling any of these three suspects, no body, no case, and that he denies that anybody in his family had anything to do with Natalee‘s disappearance.
However, in the secretly recoded police interview of the three suspects we learn otherwise from the mouth of Joran Van der Sloot.
S says to J: I didn’t declare anything.
J says to the brothers: Of course you did.
S says to J: What did I say / against your father?
J says to the brothers: You said that he (Joran’s father) said that if there’s no corpse there’s no case, or I don’t know what more sorts of shit.
J says to the brothers: That’s not true, the only thing he (Joran’s father) said that if there’s no body there don’t have a case.
D says to J: That’s true.
J says to D: Nothing of that is true.
Joran Van der Sloot admits that his father Paulus made the comment, that’s not true, the only thing he (Joran’s father) said that if there’s no body there don’t have a case. Obviously, Paulus Van der Sloot is not telling the truth in denying the statement. Why would Joran admit it were true? After all we know that the Van der Sloot’s taught their son to always tell the truth.
Also, it makes one wonder how and why Paulus Van der Sloot even has a civil case against Aruba seeing that he did make himself complicit in the initial cover up and obstruction of the investigation.
Why would Deepak Kalpoe say to Joran Van der Sloot that he is going to get 15 years “if” they find Natalee?” Once again, the word “if” is used just like in the case earlier when Joran said it. As Jossy Mansur states, there is only one crime that someone could get a 15 year sentence for. It is not for a minor offense, it would be for murder.
When Deepak said to Joran that if they find the girl he will be locked up for 15 years, he wasn’t referring to a minor infraction punishment! In Aruba, the only crime for which you would normally get such a high and severe sentence is murder! As far as I know, there is no other legal infraction that would earn such a high prison sentence.
Deepak, in the secretly recorded police tapes, goes on to accuse Joran of murder. If they find the girl, you will get 15 years. Deepak Kalpoe is stating that “if” the ALE finds Natalee Holloway, Joran Van der Sloot will be charged with murder. Just what does Deepak know? Also, why isn’t he saying anything to the prosecutors or the police? Because as many have surmised from the outset, they are all complicit in the crime.
J says to the brothers: That’s what they’re using against my father.
D says to J: We have suffered a lot because of you.
J says to the brothers: That’s the price that you’ve let my father pay. That you’re suffering so: f*** you. If you let me suffer, I say OK. I don’t have cunes [?] I can sit calmly 160 days here, for me it doesn’t make a difference. I’m ok here.
Brothers say to J: Me too, me too.
D says to J: They’re going to give you 15 years if they find the girl.
J says to D: Why? Why?
D says to J: That scholarship of yours. Gooooooodbye, you can forget about it.
J says to D: Yes, because of who, because of you, retard.
J says to D: You know very well that you did something bad, otherwise you wouldn’t lie.
Finally, the fact that the three suspects are referencing other people who may have knowledge or information into what happened that night is telling as well. Why would the three suspects be bringing up other people’s names in reference to this case if they did not have some form of involvement? This time, its Freddy who is on the
J says to D: What did you say that Freddy has to be detained?
D says to J: That Freddy has to say the truth.
J says to D: You know very well that Freddy told the truth.
S says to J: You’ll see, you’ll see.