Word came a week or two ago that the family of Joran Van der Sloot had engaged Chicago Private Investigator Ernie Rizzo. Rizzo said nothing to deny that report in a recent brief phone call and stated that he planned to travel to Aruba sometime around September 4.
Word passed along from the Van der Sloot family today states that Rizzo did approach the family to offer his services, however it was said he was not engaged. Additionally it was stated that the family plans no public statement to or through the media until Joran is released.
It's unclear whether any knowledge they may have of the investigation suggests that will be the outcome on September 4th - the date of the next hearing to end or extend his detention as a suspect in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.
Tito Lacle stated that he met with Paulus Van der Sloot today at the offices of the Van der Sloot attorney. No public comment was offered and Lacle reported on Fox News that Paulus Van der Sloot appeared to be relaxed and was not "sweating."
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
I guess no one is immune to the rumors & false info.
Posted by: jolari | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:02 AM
well now, they might as well call off the search now that Paulus has stopped sweating. No body no case, and he's confident confident dry and secure, raise your hand (you got it) raise your hand (you got it) raise your hand if you use Sure!
Posted by: vincent | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:12 AM
Could it be that he was not hired by the VDS family but someone else hired him on their behalf. Gotta think through the smoke-and-mirrors.
Posted by: proudredneck | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:13 AM
I think Tito also said Paulus told him some things he would be checking out and suggested there is alot of misinformation or misunderstood information out there.
Posted by: berry | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 07:50 AM
If I was innocent and in Aruba (or elsewhere for that matter) I might have gone this route months ago.
Posted by: clintcarter | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 08:18 AM
I guess they found jorans shoes then hahahaha LOL
Posted by: tanya | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 09:16 AM
Vincent,
RE:well now, they might as well call off the search now that Paulus has stopped sweating
These are two different issues.
1. Natalee is missing.
2. Was there a crime committed.
We seem to think they are the same issue. They may not be.
Posted by: George T. | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 09:37 AM
Isn't September 4 the next day of judical accessment? Hmmm, maybe the family has a feeling that Jurine is not getting out
Posted by: Justice4All | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 09:55 AM
Imagine pvds leads the pi right to the body and
the reward money.
Posted by: theresa c | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 10:23 AM
I wonder how fast a "work permit" is issued to HIM?
Posted by: Mike 1 | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 10:41 AM
Could it be that he was not hired by the VDS family but someone else hired him on their behalf. Gotta think through the smoke-and-mirrors.
Posted by: proudredneck | Aug 23, 2005 12:13:42 AM
==================================================
I heard that!
It's like the guy with the polygraphy equipment showing up in Aruba.
I wonder who's picking up the tab for him and who he's going to administer the tests to??????Hello.
Bigfish
Posted by: Bigfish | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 11:16 AM
NOT SWEATING??? And Greta thought that Paulus sweated like that all the time. Apparently, only when he is nervous or feels guilty. Still don't trust that guy.
Posted by: Molly | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 11:48 AM
I believe the van der Sloots have more supporters than we think. Possibly also paying for the multiple attorneys.
Posted by: Taylor | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Where do you get this "multiple attorneys" ? Paul vd Sloot is a lawyer himself, and surely the best Joran can expect to have, so he would only need one attorney for form....
Sometimes I read about 15 lawyers/attorneys, Joran changing his story 20 times, why does anyone want to create or spread this bs ? It doesn't add anything positive to the case, moreover it just makes it all more Kafka surreal...
He does have mulitple attorneys. He has 3 with those having 6-9 other attorneys in that same office that are there for legal services and helping however they can on his behalf. And it has been said by more than one legal official on the island including Deepak that Joran has changed his story 15-22 times. Deepak said he saw atleast 14 declarations of these story changes that were signed by Joran.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 01:12 PM
He does have mulitple attorneys. He has 3 with those having 6-9 other attorneys"
Pffft that 3 x 9 is 27 already.... show me !
"Deepak said he saw atleast 14 declarations of these story changes that were signed by Joran."
You really think the prosecutor will show Deepak all this ?
I think what you mean is shown here: http://scrux.com/natalee/
That is changing stories, but rather additions over time as he (Joran) was questtioned further, quite normal, rather it would be abnormal if this was not the case.
Posted by: Tante Bet | Aug 23, 2005 1:18:05 PM
I said that the 3 attorneys have additional partners/attorneys 6 or 9 MORE which add up to 9-12 that can help on the case.. Go watch the Fox interviews of Arleen Ellis Shipper (defense attorney on Aruba and there are several more than have been interviewed stating this)Tito Lacle and others if you want to be shown proof of how many attorneys he has access to. Deepak did state this in an interview Greta did with him similar to the one that Van Zandt just did that she stated "he told me he and Joran were no longer friends" and when she asked why he stated" because he signed 14 different statements(some against me)that were brought for me to sign, so I saw all of them" That was the only part of the interview that was released just like Tito only realeased a sample of what Pvds said in his interview lastnight.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 01:26 PM
If I was innocent and in Aruba (or elsewhere for that matter) I might have gone this route months ago.
Posted by: clintcarter | Aug 23, 2005 8:18:53 AM
Politicians hire PIs all the time. Most of them have not been accused of anything. Why do they do this? Oh, you say to smear the name of their oppponent? What's that all about?
Posted by: proudredneck | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 01:27 PM
"Deepak said he saw atleast 14 declarations of these story changes that were signed by Joran."
You really think the prosecutor will show Deepak all this ?
If you knew what you were talking about then you would know the defense attorney was not present in the first month or so of the interagations so he would not have shown Deepak anything. Deepak saw what Joran declared because it was brought for him to sign also if it had been the TRUTH. I guess there wasn't much TRUTH in his declarations or only one. The one that the brothers stuck to.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Proudredneck, I'm sorry I don't understand your comment.
What I meant was if I (ME) were innocent of a crime (no reflection on guilt or innocence in this case) and I felt there were evidence out there that might prove MY innocence I would have someone representing me out there looking for that evidence (i.e. proof someone else was guilty).
Posted by: clintcarter | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 02:04 PM
c6 - Fierce interrogation leading to giving untrue statements have investigators back off. (common behaviour under certain interrogation techniques as susposedly used in his case)
Posted by: gemebwai | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 02:08 PM
This scrux thing leaves out information: such as details of their original story and accusation of the black man near the hotel, which is inconsistent with their later statements.
also, c4 says as an excuse for the multiple statements: "A simple jogged memory correction of who picked Joran Van der Sloot up and drove him to his home." where as earlier in the article, it says joran walked home and text messaged deepak when he was home.
Seems the "evidence line" needs to straighten itself out.
Posted by: howie | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 04:11 PM
Defence attorney ? I wrote prosecutor.... !
"Deepak saw what Joran declared because it was brought for him to sign also if it had been the TRUTH."
So you are saying the prosecutor goes over to Deepak with Jorans statement that he (Deepak) needs to sign as being the truth ??
Hahaha
I had on my brain the defense attorney statement(of how many) but it doesn't matter because the prosecutor is not the person interogating Joran either its just the LE investigating detectives. The same ones that signed the statement of Joran saying Deepak could have went back, raped her and killed her then buried the body. There were 4 of them that signed that particular declaration. And then they took them to Deepak and Satish to sign if what they read in the declaration to be true they were suppose to sign them. Thats how it works.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 04:32 PM
So yes Deepak would have been shown Joran's declarations just like Joran would be shown the brothers. Especially if they were trying to get them to turn on each other. Deepak is not the only one that have seen these declarations
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 04:33 PM
There were 4 of them that signed that particular declaration. And then they took them to Deepak and Satish to sign if what they read in the declaration to be true they were suppose to sign them. Thats how it works.
---------------------------------------------
Shown, maybe..... but under Dutch/Aruban law statements of other withnesses of suspects are not signed by eachother... that's crazy.
hahaha where did I say they were signing eachothers declarations??? I assume they have a declaration for each suspect to sign, once again if its the truth, but since there have been like 22 or so decalartions made they would talk to the K2 then make up the declarations for them to sign. No use wasting paper on lies and bs as the other 21 of the 22 were.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 04:51 PM
it doesn't matter to me what the number is I could care less I just want the truth and the family to get some closure. I was just stating the number told officials and reported in the interviews of different attornyes and LE officials given in the MSM.
Posted by: Hopefloats | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 06:16 PM
I dont believe any of it anymore! The only thing I can identify as the thruth is Natalee is still missing.
Could some one tell me...if they find her body after all this time, what evidence will they find?
Posted by: Jen | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 06:27 PM
Everyone must be gone already. LOL
Posted by: Jen | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 06:34 PM
One comment...if they find her skeletal remains, they can still find DNA from bone matter.
Main comment: If JVDS is so innocent, and his parents are so gung-ho on proving his innocence, why aren't they cooperating or answering questions? If my child was accused wrongly, I'd be hiring someone myself to investigate and help find out what happened to that girl.
Posted by: Concerned | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 10:38 AM
Concerned,
Good point!
This stomp "stomping their feet, poor little me" routine stinks of something wrong!
Posted by: jayjay | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Has anyone looked into Paul Van Der Sloot's position/connections n Holland? It has been mentioned by the press that he has pull in Auruba and it may develope that he has even more in Holland (and/or Mrs. Van Der Sloot) and that is why it appears he is treated in a special way.
Posted by: J. Sanford | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 10:41 PM
Does anyone know the van De Sloot home address, I wish to write them----thanks
Posted by: jake brighton | Thursday, September 08, 2005 at 11:14 PM
Everybody here is treated in the same way. This in not the USA. We're not impressed by people with status. We just want to know WHO did it and not just lock someone up. That's the easy way out. How was it? Innocent till proven guilty? Isn't that what the Americans say? So where is that proof? I don't say he isn't guilty, I don't say he is innocent. I say, there's no proof. Yet.
Posted by: Linda | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 03:56 AM