Paulus And Anita Van der Sloot Interview

Video via CBS

His parents say the only thing established for sure is that Joran was with Natalee the night she vanished, and they stand by his insistence that he didn't hurt her.

"News should be based on facts," Anita says. "If not, it's a show … to damage people, to slander people. That is no news, no news at all."

Better not let Geraldo hear you say that ... he might open your safe.

Comments

[Althor]

Quote:"Birds of a feather flock together."

Posted by: Kat_Gram | Aug 31, 2005 12:23:

And by the look of the "prejudice," "rabidness," and "lack of touch with reality" evidenced in your comments, your "flock" just "Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"!

Dear God!!! I shouldn’t even have to be reminding people of this!

As anyone else, Joran is entitled to the "presumption of innocence" until proven "guilty," in Aruba as well as in the US!

So far all the evidence against him is one of "association" since he was unfortunate enough to be one of the last three persons seen with Natalee on the night she disappeared.

As for the discrepancies in his "Depositions," after over two months of daily 14 hour interrogations, and very uncomfortable conditions designed to "break" him, its a wonder he hasn't lost his sanity, much less that there are discrepancies in the numerous statements extracted under duress, and in differing states of mind, fatigue, and stress!

So, at this point, and if this is all the prosecution holds, there might not be enough evidence to convict him of any crime. So,
I have to agree with Anita Van Der Sloot in her comments.

All the negative reporting of the "media circus" surrounding this case, combined with the repeated baseless allegations, and relentless accusatory propaganda leveled daily at Joran by Beth Holloway Twitty and her camp, which pre-empted the official on-going Aruban investigation from the very start, have aroused such an amount of animosity, and bloodlust against Joran, that it is inconceivable at this point that he would receive a fair trial, but will most likely become a scapegoat, regardless of innocence or guilt, by the Aruban authorities trying to exorcise Natalee’s "wailing Banshee" of a mother from further disrupting their lives, and keep her from further ruining the economy of the impoverished island in her vicious campaign!

Furthermore, the many “lightly veiled” threats made daily on the blogs, that should Joran be found innocent, “he will meet with some fatal accident that will redress for Natalee,” sends chills down the spine, and proves how sick, illogical, immoral, and dangerous some of these Beth "followers" and "supporters " can be, which she and her cronies have so avidly “aroused,” and "riled" for months now with her baseless, inflammatory statements, and whose position, irrespective of Joran's innocence or guilt, can be summed up in the following words: "God be damned if I don't see that filthy Joran flayed, castrated, and burned at the stake, dead, wether he's guilty or not. To me he's guilty, Beth says so, and I don't care what any evidence says!!!"

And you call that justice???

Althor

[clintcarter]

Althor! Have a drink, man. It's on me.

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them.

[Althor]

Thanks, I need one!

Althor

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

[Chicago]

Clint Carter,
I believe that Paulus made the statement of the 4am pick up time to Beth & Jug (& a few of Jug's friends who came to help)on that very first day. Then I believe Paulus repeated the 4am pick up time to Greta in the interview that her & Beth had with him without the cameras. Then later in the course of the investigation Paulus changed the pick up time to 11pm.

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

My dear friends of the blogosphere.

It has certainly been a good exchange of observations and opinions for the most part.
So I will retire now.

Thank you and may God bless you all.
ZZZZzzzz....____

[clintcarter]

AK, one should be hospitable in one's own home.

[clintcarter]

Chicago I will look into that but not tonite, ZZZzzz. Thanks.

[Althor]

QUOTE: "Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them."

Posted by: AkekoaHoAlethia | Aug 31, 2005 2:13:36 AM

At least we waste our time trying to convey "intelligently" our positions, and explain the "reasons" behind them, where you only fall back on those "sacharinne" concepts that you mentioned which you arbitrarily extend to some, but deny others!!!

Isn't Anita Van Der Sloot someone whose child's life has been irrevocably affected by these tragic events? Or did I perhaps forget that she's "not worthy" of your aforementioned "compassion," only that rabble rouser Beth is???

Althor

[LornaD]

Anita, Paulus and many others, it seems, forget one very serious and disgusting thing that Joran and the Kalpoes did -

They allowed two innocent men to sit in jail, knowing all the while that their lie put them there. Their lie, which some are so content to dismiss as the understandable transgression of a scared 17 year old.

Is that OK with Joran's friends? Even if you are convinced Joran had nothing to do with Natalee's disappearance, is it OK with you that they allowed those two guys to be arrested and held?

That was not a lie by a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar. It was a detailed lie that got two men arrested.

[Althor]

Quote: "That was not a lie by a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar. It was a detailed lie that got two men arrested."

Posted by: LornaD | Aug 31, 2005 2:27:36 AM

Agree, and all three should pay for that if that's the case. But that is a far cry from assuming someone guilty of "rape," and "murder" without sufficient inculpatory evidence.

We should have let the Aruban authorities proceed with the investigation, instead of pre-empting them from the very beginning, with all this "media-circus," and all this "hooplah" over nothing but rumors, hear-says, and innuendos in the first place!

Althor

[Mulder]

But that is a far cry from assuming someone guilty of "rape," and "murder" without sufficient inculpatory evidence.

Posted by: Althor | Aug 31, 2005 2:35:17 AM

Fair enough. But lets put on our realistic hats. What could have realistically happened to her that night?

1. Accidental death and we haven't found her? Not likely

2. Joran just 'left her' and someone else happened by. Maybe, but not likely.

3. A bunch of teenage boys accidentally caused her death while trying to take advantage of her drunken state on her last night on the island.

I vote 3. And most people would. You know why .. because its the most likely. And guess what else. Usually, the most likely thing to happen .. happens.

[Althor]

QUOTE: 3. A bunch of teenage boys accidentally caused her death while trying to take advantage of her drunken state on her last night on the island.

I agree. I also believe that to be the most likey scenario.

However we are treading dangerous ground here if without sufficient physical evidence, we jump to impute guilt. Remember number #2, though less likely, was also possible.

Also, in spite of her intoxication, one has to take into consideration wether Natalee was "forced" (which apparently by the way she left withh all three suspects, waving to friends as she drove by, she wasn't), or was a willing participant, and something went wrong, since the "forced" approach would necessarily imply "premeditation," whereas if she was a willing participant and something went wrong, then it was an accident, though that doesn't explain why they didn't just go to the police and explained what happened if that was the case.

Althor

[Mulder]

"one has to take into consideration wether Natalee was "forced" (which apparently by the way she left withh all three suspects, waving to friends as she drove by, she wasn't), or was a willing participant, and something went wrong"

Posted by: Althor | Aug 31, 2005 2:56:38 AM

No we don't. Her state that night is irrelevant. If they know what happened, they are guilty of lying about what happened. Whether it was consentual or not.

[Mulder]

However we are treading dangerous ground here if without sufficient physical evidence, we jump to impute guilt. Remember number #2, though less likely, was also possible.

Posted by: Althor | Aug 31, 2005 2:56:38 AM

Are we? We can't say for sure that OJ Simpson killed his wife - we didn't have conclusive evidence. But, if we are wearing our 'realistic' hats ...

[Althor]

Quote: "No we don't. Her state that night is irrelevant. If they know what happened, they are guilty of lying about what happened. Whether it was consentual or not."

Posted by: Mulder | Aug 31, 2005 3:09:18 AM

That is why I stated that if that's the case it doesn't make sense why they wouldn't just have gone to the police and tell them about the accident. Unless there was more to hide. But what?

As you pointed out, they could have claimed that whatever happened had been consentual, and it had just been an accident, unlees there was violence involved, but there is no physical evidence of that at this point.

Althor

[Althor]

The problem is that due to the excessive coverage given this case, combined with the scant evidence available, we all have been building, presumption, upon presumption to rationalize the case.

What if after being with Joran at the beach Natalee got all paranoid due to drugs, and Jordan did in fact leave her behind, or she simply fell into a drunken stupor, and he left her there sleeping it away, and number two happened? He most likely was under the influence too, and probably not thinking straight, where he didn't think much of leaving her behind.

The problem is there is no solid evidence to prove either one or the other.

Althor

[mona]

I think at this point paulus may have lied more than juron...

Posted by: Observer | Aug 30, 2005 10:03:52 PM

Did CBS even ask Paulus about his day at the casino with Joran and if HE met Natalee?

[RICK]

Althor. The media circus continues! They must be dying that Katrina is taking over their coverage on Natalee. All the channels, same videos, same coverage, same, same, same. No matter what, you are still right on target. I'm not defending the VDS's and Company, but there is no concrete evidence, as yet, to put them in front of a firing squad. See what happens today.

[mona]

Did PVDS check the interview questions before hand (refuse to answer any he didnt want asked)?

[kathy]

MiDushaAruba & Robert: You forgot to add to their hobbies, underage gambling, drinking, possibly "date-rate" drugs and raping unconcious girls!

[kathy]

I forgot to add to hobbies; photography that involves "maybe" filming and distribution of sex crimes against a "girl" and/or young women!

[donnaanna]

ah Dan, you're showing your age. I stayed up to watch that show as cheesy as it was. What a hoot when it was empty.

Posted by: FloridaPatty | Aug 30, 2005 10:49:02 PM

LOL, that was the first and last Geraldo show I ever watched until this case!!!!!

[frank]

the media circus began only after it was found that a detailed lie kept 2 innocent men in jail. Once the media got wind of a coverup, that's when the circus began. If the police had not allowed a judge's son, who was the last person to be with her go, this whole case would not be as big as it is. I for once think the media is doing a great service in this case. Arubans should be angry at the VDS's and not the Holloways.

The charge of racism is also valid. I heard duckface Schippers actually say when asked about 2 "black" security guards being arrested, "we don't like to talk about that" why Arlene?

[donnaanna]

The only prayer I say for Joran is that if he gets out of jail for some reason, that justice will be done to him by others, since law enforcement seems to want to protect him.

Posted by: stellartrack | Aug 30, 2005 11:47:42 PM

Oh, good! I now have a new prayer to add to mine:

I pray that all of the people who are so willing to join the lynch mob mentality of condeming people without evidence will one day have their lives, and their family's lives, ripped apart by being accussed of something they didn't do! Amen!

[frank]

donnaanna,
nice real nice. praying for people to have their lives ripped apart by something they didn't do. How about the security guards? Were you upset about their staying in jail?

[donnaanna]

The charge of racism is also valid. I heard duckface Schippers actually say when asked about 2 "black" security guards being arrested, "we don't like to talk about that" why Arlene?

Posted by: frank | Aug 31, 2005 8:36:36 AM

K2J said 'dark shirts', not 'two black men'! All sorts of people wear dark shirts! It was the LE that picked the two men that they did. And, those two men were suspected because of other suspicious activities. If everyone's logic follows that Joran should be held because he 'looks' guilty, the same is true for the two security guards. They had good reason to believe that the security guards might be guilty.

[donnaanna]

donnaanna,
nice real nice. praying for people to have their lives ripped apart by something they didn't do. How about the security guards? Were you upset about their staying in jail?

Posted by: frank | Aug 31, 2005 8:47:07 AM

Frank, I'm being sarcastic..... I don't wish harm to anyone, not ever! I just get incredibly angry when I hear threats to Joran if he released. If he is released, it is because there was not enough evidence to prove:

1. that there was a crime.
2. he is guilty of a crime.

That is the law. Vigilante justice scares me! Think of all of the instances where innocent people were lynched, or died in prison or were locked up for most of their lives. By the time the proof is looked at, its too late, their lives have been ruined!!! Joran does not deserve to be hurt physically if he is innocent. And, it is not up to us to decide he is guilty based on the media lies and speculation they call journalism.

I really get upset as well when I see people say things like, 'he is guilty because ________(fill in the blank' and the filled in part is a media lie. They can legally say all the lies they want by saying things like 'could the evidence be dvds of them raping someone else?' Then watch everyone run around saying 'they have dvds of them raping someone else!!' It makes me sick!!! People are willing to jump on any rumor and believe it like fact!

At this point, I have not seen one web site or blog that is adequately keeping score. They all seem to have a prejudiced view. This is the only site where you actually get to read open views from all angles of the what's really going on in this case. But, there still is no balanced scorecard ie, rumour vs. truth. And most of what I read are opinions based on rumours that were long ago dispelled. I truly hope that the new commission in Aruba will be able to sift through the lies and the rumors and stick to the facts. The same for the judge/judges in this case. I hope they don't bend to the pressure to 'hang' somebody, and that they stick to the laws and evidence.

[frank]

donnaanna,

Fair enough. No one deserves to be harmed if they are innocent. Especially Natalee. If he is released though does not mean he is innocent. To me, having a lie ready before anyone knew Natalee was missing is proof enough for me though. You can always stand behind the law. But the law does not always provide justice. In this case, it is my strong belief that Joran is guilty of rape and murder. My 25 year career ended, voluntarily when I was hired to defend a 20 year old who was accused of raping and sodomizing a 12 year old girl. While he never admitted it, both he and his parents constantly lied to me and expected me to formulate stories with their only goal of being proved innocent. They were guilty. Finally, I quit when I realized how the legal system is a game. I remember the girls parents on the day of his aquittal. I also remember the accused parents, who had completely convinced themselves that because he was not convicted, he was innocent. 9 years later he was convicted of raping 2 10 year old girls. I believe Joran and the self described "pimps" are guilty.
I would only ask that you pray for Natalee and her parents. They will suffer for the rest of their lives having to think about their girl being gang raped in the moments before her death. Try to imagine that for your daughter whom you raised.

[jayjay]

K2J said 'dark shirts', not 'two black men'! All sorts of people wear dark shirts! It was the LE that picked the two men that they did. And, those two men were suspected because of other suspicious activities. If everyone's logic follows that Joran should be held because he 'looks' guilty, the same is true for the two security guards. They had good reason to believe that the security guards might be guilty.

Posted by: donnaanna | Aug 31, 2005 8:58:09 AM

donnaanna,

The boys said "a black security guard dressed in dark clothing" was assisting Natalee at the HI...

The only "reason" there was information that the guards COULD be guilty was because the boys said they were!!!

The same boys who as far as we know were the last people known (yes even that morning) to have seen her alive!

One of those boys by the way whose father happened to have a relationship (undefined) with the lead investigator in the case!

Bottom line, the men “known” to have been with her by massive eye witness accounts one of which admitted sexual contact with her, told police that 2 other men must have done something to her.

LE response…”Ok boys see ya’ later, hey let’s go get the guards, have fun at school guys”…

THAT is the only reason those security guards were arrested!

[fokje]

donnaanna wrote: "K2J said 'dark shirts', not 'two black men'! All sorts of people wear dark shirts!"

besides, the security guards wear white shirts. If they would blame the guards, they would have said; "black men with white shirts."

[RICK]

Frank: Frankly, I think Arlene Schipper is quite attractive. Duckface?????

[jayjay]

Frank: Frankly, I think Arlene Schipper is quite attractive. Duckface?????

Posted by: RICK | Aug 31, 2005 10:54:21 AM

ABSOLUTELY!!

Although I wish she would stop fidgeting with the damn earpiece every time she is on Greta!!

[frank]

JayJay,
When I first saw her I thought that but every time she opens her mouth she get uglier and uglier to me. Maybe it's when she gets into her defense attorney mode but let's not go down this road or this otherwise great board could get nasty. But hey, the new Holloway attorney, the ex prosecutor is freaky!

[donnaanna]

I would only ask that you pray for Natalee and her parents. They will suffer for the rest of their lives having to think about their girl being gang raped in the moments before her death. Try to imagine that for your daughter whom you raised.

Posted by: frank | Aug 31, 2005 9:48:02 AM

Frank, I think the few things that we all agree upon is that whatever happened to Natalee can't be good. And, that whatever it was, Natalee and her parents don't (or didn't) deserve it. And we all would like to truth. And, yes, I do pray for Natalee.

I respect those that state clearly that they 'think' he is guilty. I don't respect those that say he deserves a cruel and unusual punishment because they 'know' he is guilty. Those people scare me! At this point, we do not 'know' much at all, and we certainly don't know enough to prove he is guilty because we don't even have any evidence that a crime was committed. We can all believe that there was one, but where's the proof?

And, just as strongly as those who believe Joran is guilty, I believe that he is innocent until and unless there is proof of his guilt. ie, forensic evidence. There is none. While I also have no proof that he is innocent, I try to keep an open mind. I just wish those who are convinced he is guilty would do the same!

[donnaanna]

Would somebody please tell me what the Twitty's have lied about? I believe they're just repeating what they're told by the "powers that be." It was Beth & jug that Joran met face-to-face, not Dave.

Posted by: punkingale | Aug 31, 2005 12:52:55

Ah, punkingale, you have hit on one of my favorites right in your question.....

Here are the links to two interviews with her:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159779,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160231,00.html

[frank]

donnaanna

I understand. I'm curious though, you use the word 'believe' alot. Does that mean that those beliefs are solely controlled by the legal system and legal definitions? Is everyone who is not guilty under the law innocent? Do you believe these 3 are hiding something? I'm sure your beliefs of his innocence are not as strong as those of us who believe he is guilty. There is no emotion behind "innocent until proven guilty". Haven't you ever been lied to? When you meet someone, do you use instinct? Would you hire someone solely on a resume? Can you give me something to help me be open minded about their innocence, anything, other than "innocent until proven guilty"? Let me in on why you feel so strongly about their innocence that is not a legal discussion. I respect your opinion but am still looking for something more here from those who 'believe' they are innocent. Hey, it might help me when one of my sons lies to me, who knows, they may be just scared.

[jayjay]

Ah, punkingale, you have hit on one of my favorites right in your question.....

Here are the links to two interviews with her:

Posted by: donnaanna | Aug 31, 2005 12:56:48 PM

donnaanna,

I was trying to keep an open mind with regard to your posts...

I can only gather from your links that you are trying to PROVE that Beth has lied?

Well you sick twisted person, your links are to Beth stating that she felt her daughter may still be alive and that Beth would not leave without her.

To the first one, when did it become a LIE to say you believed your daughter to be alive? It is called hope...

The second one about her not leaving the island without her daughter, how is that a lie, because she left for a couple of days to spend time with Natalee's brother.

YOU ARE AS LOW AS THEY COME!!!!!!

[donnaanna]

Frank you have asked me a whole bunch of questions.... I will try to answer but am not sure if Dan will consider my opinions 'off topic' or not. At the risk of being censored or banned, here goes:

1. Does that mean that those beliefs are solely controlled by the legal system and legal definitions?

No, like everyone else I have my opinions of each of the laws that I am aware of. I have my own set of legal, moral and religious viewpoints. However, right or wrong, I try to stay within the laws that govern our country. And, the beauty of living in the U.S., is that if I don't believe that a law is right, I can try to change it!

2. Is everyone who is not guilty under the law innocent?
No, not necessarily, but they do have rights under the law. Maybe they don't always deserve them, but they are there.

3. Do you believe these 3 are hiding something?
I don't know. I don't have enough facts to make that decision. I subscribe to the train of thought as outlined at scrux.com. I think that there are logical, 'non-guilty' reasons to explain most of what has happened so far. Just as I agree that there are logical 'guilty' reasons for most of what has happened so far. But, at this point is all opinion and conjecture.

4. I'm sure your beliefs of his innocence are not as strong as those of us who believe he is guilty.
Don't be so sure!

5. There is no emotion behind "innocent until proven guilty".
Oh, but there is emotion behind it! Just as much emotion as there is behind believing in the Constitution of the United States and our un-alienable rights!!! Do you think our sons & daughters would go to war to defend these rights if there were not any emotion behind it! The thought of 'innocent until proven guilty' is part of the core foundation of our legal system which is based on our constitution!

6. Haven't you ever been lied to?
Yes, of course I have!

7. When you meet someone, do you use instinct?
Yes, and in this case, I have very strong instincts that Joran is not guilty.

8. Would you hire someone solely on a resume?
Of course not! I don't understand your point here......

9. Can you give me something to help me be open minded about their innocence, anything, other than "innocent until proven guilty"? Let me in on why you feel so strongly about their innocence that is not a legal discussion. I respect your opinion but am still looking for something more here from those who 'believe' they are innocent. Hey, it might help me when one of my sons lies to me, who knows, they may be just scared.

a. no evidence of a crime
b. no evidence of guilt of a crime
c. there are about a million things that could have happened that do not include Joran having committed this crime. (reasonable doubt)
d. if he had committed this crime, I feel he would have broken down and admitted it by now.
e. if he had committed this crime, and his friends knew aobut it, they would have broken down and admitted to it by now. What possible reason would they have to protect him? And, if they do implicate Joran, at this point, I would be very leary of it. My suspicion would be that they are simply trying to get themselves off the hook.
f. I don't think these kids are savvy enough to pull off a 'perfect crime' with no evidence left behind.

Is that enough?

[frank]

donnaanna,

Great email, thanks. It's very revealing about you. When the Holloways arrived at the VDS house with the police the day after Joran supposedly left her at the beach and she wasn't considered missing by anyone other than Beth, why did Joran and the 2 kalpoe brothers already have a concoted story about dropping Natalee off at the hotel? They had a lie prepared between the three of them when as you believe, they are not guilty of anything?

I'm just looking for some reasonable explanation to this.

But I sure appreciate your responses, I really do.

[donnaanna]

To the first one, when did it become a LIE to say you believed your daughter to be alive? It is called hope...

The second one about her not leaving the island without her daughter, how is that a lie, because she left for a couple of days to spend time with Natalee's brother.

YOU ARE AS LOW AS THEY COME!!!!!!

Posted by: jayjay | Aug 31, 2005 3:23:05 PM

No, the first one was where she said that she had not spoken to Joran or his family that first night in Aruba. She emphatically stated it 3 times!

The second one is where she talks about her complete conversation with Joran on that first night.

One of them is a lie!!!! You pick!

[donnaanna]

When the Holloways arrived at the VDS house with the police the day after Joran supposedly left her at the beach and she wasn't considered missing by anyone other than Beth, why did Joran and the 2 kalpoe brothers already have a concoted story about dropping Natalee off at the hotel? They had a lie prepared between the three of them when as you believe, they are not guilty of anything?

I'm just looking for some reasonable explanation to this.
Posted by: frank | Aug 31, 2005 3:33:35 PM

Frank, that is one of three seperate stories about this. The logical explaination to it is that he recieved a phone call at the Wyndham telling him that the police were there looking for someone he had been seen with last. He had from the time he left the Wyndham until he got home to analyze the situation and his options. Do I think he picked the right one? No, of course not.

The second story is that he was told at school that day that Natalee was missing and that he was the last person seen with her. The third story is that someone (possibly Freddy) called him after school while he was at the tennis court and told him. Every scenario I have read would give him good reason to try to cover his tracks!

[donnaanna]

YOU ARE AS LOW AS THEY COME!!!!!!

Posted by: jayjay | Aug 31, 2005 3:23:05 PM

And jayjay, the personal attack is not appreciated. The interviews speak for themselves. You are shooting the messenger!

First version of events:
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 Live Interview with Greta Van Susteren,

Quote:
VAN SUSTEREN: After looking at the video, what was the next sort of step in the investigation?
HOLLOWAY: Well, as far as what my concerns were, I wanted to find where this young man lived.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you find that out?
HOLLOWAY: Yes, I did.
VAN SUSTEREN: How did you do that?
HOLLOWAY: That was just through a series of events that I really don't want to get into now...
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you ever talk to him?
HOLLOWAY: I never had a conversation with him.
No, I did not.

Then a few days later in another interview with Greta she said this:

Quote:
Second version of events:
Monday, June 20, 2005 Live Interview with Greta Van Susteren,
Quote:
TWITTY: I think that the moment we arrived on the island and when we were in contact with these individuals, from May 31, from 1:00 AM to 4:00 AM, I knew immediately. I knew immediately.
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you personal contact with them?
TWITTY: Oh, yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: What did they say to you?
TWITTY: Well, it was very limited, but when the Van der Sloot young man approached the vehicle that I was seated in, he had the most condescending, arrogant, somewhat powerful attitude of any 17-year-old male I have ever seen.
VAN SUSTEREN: What did he say?
TWITTY: When he approached the car, I was holding a picture of Natalee. And I said, I want my daughter. I want her now. And he just threw his head back and hit his chest, and he said, What do you want me to do? What do you want me to do?
VAN SUSTEREN: Beth, thank you.

[frank]

I agree with you. But to have the story in such detail that 2 others, the Kalpoe's had the same story down pat. And to include the security guards, both of whom had records and police would know that this might sound plausible is amazing. And as you said, how could they have committing the perfect crime? I agree with you. They had help, but even your response of "covering their tracks" makes me believe you know they are guilty of something. Why would someone need to cover tracks. Gee, I hope my son, when finding out that the girl he had sex with and left on the beach went missing would fall back on the truth to help find out what happened. Not concoct a lie and mislead the police in an effort not to have her found. You said he was covering his tracks, why?

[jayjay]

donnaanna,

You are making a giant leap from your first link to your second link...

She was simply asked in the second link if she had contact with the boy and she said she had and from the excerpts you posted it was a very brief exchange, one question asked and answered...

That constitutes a conversation in your mind?

[jayjay]

And I personally am not that concerned whether or not you appreciate the personal attack...

You posted links with no explanation and when reading those links it looks like you were accusing her of lying about leaving the island or if she thought her daughter was still alive.

So we are going to have to agree to disagree. You were not clear on what you meant by her lying and it made you look insensitive and then I reacted to that.

Sorry, but maybe next time you should be a little more specific when you just post links and I personally would not attack you for that but just disagree!!

[donnaanna]

You said he was covering his tracks, why?

Posted by: frank | Aug 31, 2005 3:55:36 PM

Frank, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? With Natalee missing, no matter what condition he last saw her in, he had to know that it was not going to look good for him..... Read scrux.com

And, yes, I agree, if one of my sons were in the same situation, I would hope that their first instinct were to tell the truth. But, to me, his telling a lie is part of what makes me believe he is innocent of murder. I really think that the only way that he would be stupid enough to think that he could get away with the lie is that he truly believed that Natalee would show up in a few days. JMHO

BTW, thank you for the respectful way that you are asking questions. I know that our opinions do not agree but you are at least, being polite about it!

[donnaanna]

Sorry, but maybe next time you should be a little more specific when you just post links and I personally would not attack you for that but just disagree!!

Posted by: jayjay | Aug 31, 2005 4:03:36 PM

jayjay, I apologize for not pointing out the sections I was talking about. And, quite honestly, I am very aware of the fact that most people agree with you and frank here. I am actually really, really glad that there are only two of you here discussing this with me!!!

Let's just call them contradictions in her statements, okay? Granted, it was not a lengthy conversation, but if we are to believe her first statement, then the second interview where she talks about a conversation never really happened, did it? What bothers me most is that people still make statements like 'he pounded his chest at BHT'. But, honestly, we don't even really know if that is true, do we? I mean, which story are we supposed to believe?

But before you get upset again, I have to repeat, very clearly, that I empathize with her situation and that I honestly have no idea what I would do if it were me. Obviously, she feels that it is in her best interest to villainize K2J and PVDS. Do I think it is right? No. Would I do the same thing? I really don't know!!!!!

[frank]

donnaanna,

and we don't even know if the story about him leaving her on the beach is true. Well we respectfully disagree. I think there is no way an innocent person lies especially when the suspicions become more serious. I may have even believed him if his first lie was that he left her on the beach unharmed then we may have some agreement. But to concoct a story with the K bros so elaborate in that short time and to add the element of the guards...This is where my instinct tells me not only is the father involved but others.