A quick note before I start, Greta is on TV talking about the ABC video. This was a casino video - Beth knew it existed. What does it say about Fox's actual reporting that it came from another network after all this time? If you really think Greta Van Sustern is some kind of an actual news reporter, you must be daft.
Many of the followers of the Natalee Holloway case seem to have had it ingrained into them via cable news that Joran Van Der Sloot is a murderer and a rapist. No other answer will do. However, there are some good reasons to reflect back on events and at least contemplate another possibility, if not two or three. But I'll only deal with one here. Is it possible one or both of the Kalpoes raped and murdered Natalee Holloway and had help to hide the crime?
Let's review some facts and some items, even if they can't be confirmed as true.
Fact, starting with an outrageous report from Geraldo Rivera, cable news cast Joran Van Der Sloot as a devil long before there was any proof. And, actually, there never has been any proof of such a thing, other than he lied early in the investigation. People were informed by Geraldo Rivera Joran made and sold a pornographic video featuring underage girls - not true. We've been told there is a long line of Aruban girls who claim Joran was involved in some rape, or date rape scenario with them, but none have been produced.
At the same time I did conduct personal interviews with two separate females who either knew Van Der Sloot or dated him. One was living in the US at the time, far from any intimidation or threat. Those interviews gave no such impression of an evil Joran, in fact, the opposite. And there was also an American girl, however misguided, who spoke out favorably on his behalf.
Based upon the facts I know to be true, versus the hyperbole of cable news, there's simply no way for me to conclude Van Der Sloot is an evil rapist or murderer. And if there were, I would say so.
Like it or not, Fox and Natalee's Mother gave everyone a villain before there was any actual proof of a crime. Even the Mountain Brook students who encountered Joran spoke well of him until the story began to be shaped in a narrative designed more to hold an audience, than to inform.
So, suppose the assertion that Satish Kalpoe did drive Joran home that night is true. I've heard there is reason to believe it from actual police reports, despite the denials of the Kalpoe attorney. The fact is, if he admitted it, it would put his clients in a real bind.
Consider this. If either of the Kalpoes drove Joran home, not only would they know he left Natalee alive, but he would be over an hour on foot away from her - and he of all of the three boys did not have a access to a vehicle. Could Satish have decided to take a quick drive back to the beach where Natalee was left after dropping Joran at home? I can't suggest he did, but I also certainly can't rule it out.
And remember, there are reports, one which I myself passed along, which was apparently confirmed, that the two Kalpoe brothers were cleaning out Deepak's vehicle shortly after Natalee's disappearance. Why would that be if they simply dropped Joran and Natalee off at the beach? Did something go on in that vehicle after Joran was dropped at home?
Also, enter Steve Croes who foolishly stepped in to try and give the boys an alibi. He was not a friend of Joran's. He was a friend of Deepaks, so far as I can tell.
I'm not trying to steer attention away from Van Der Sloot. My interest in this case began like most people's, with a genuine desire to find out the truth of what happened to a missing young girl. That's never changed. I've forced myself to not buy into the unsupported statements, the confusing allegations, not because I don't like someone, but because there was no way for me to see how such things would lead me to the truth.
It's easy to blame someone for a crime you can't prove they committed. It's more difficult to reign in your emotions and insist on solid evidence because it's the only thing which can give you solid answers. When I look at what I personally have been able to learn of the principles in this case, it's more difficult for me to conclude Joran did it, than to conclude he did not.
And if that indeed is the case, it opens up the possibilities to some other interesting scenarios which may not have been as over-zealously pursued. Something happened in or around that beach that night in Aruba. And someone likely knows what it was. And at least one possible reason why we've never gotten answers is because we've been asking the wrong person.
Lastly, a senior criminal interrogator was brought in from Holland. And his reputation was that of one of the best. After significant time going at Joran Van Der Sloot, his conclusion was there likely wasn't anything else there to get.
Whatever the case, unfortunately, while the video tomorrow night on PrimeTime may be compelling for some, I doubt it will yield any of the real answers people want when it comes to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.
Update: I meant to add this. I realize no matter what I write here, some of you are going to insist everything is the work of those sneaky, scheming Dutch - but it's a fact. Joran has not been cleared as a suspect in this case. If he were actually a good liar, his early lies likely wouldn't have come to light. Fact is, he's a bad liar, apparently.
His Father knows the law. I have a difficult time believing his Father would allow him to go on TV for an extended interview now of any kind, with any restriction, given that one misstatement captured on tape could put him back in jail. Based on logic, it's difficult to conclude he has anything to hide.
Maybe he does. But if he did and he was my son, he wouldn't go near a television studio under any conditions until he was cleared as a suspect and not subject to re-arrest.
If Natalee drowned why does Joran have 3 versions of how he got home? Where are her shoes and clothes? Did she go swimming wearing a denim skirt? Doubtful so where is the skirt? Joran alleges that she wasn't drunk so if you believe him, she was not so drunk she jumped in the water fully clothed
Why does Deepak tell the police to ask Joran where his shoes are?
We don't know the exact time that someone at the K2 house logged on to the computer, somewhere around 2AM I thought.
Posted by: xxx | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:22 PM
If Joran was on the beach with Natalee, then he would most likely have taken his shoes off. He says that he was back in the car to go home when he remembered them, and could not be bothered to go back and get them.
Posted by: annie | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:25 PM
However, if he had walked home then I would have thought he would have looked harder for his shoes!!
Posted by: annie | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:26 PM
Annie, these conversations seem disjointed. Postings keep popping up after I've posted and I see them later. No, I do not know the boys personally, just from following the case from the very beginning. Lately I'm more out of the loop of all the videos etc.
You say there was e-mailing, yes I remember that's what was originally said. Lately over at Scrux, the posters have been mentioning text messaging and it's getting confusing. The e-mailing would have put everyone in their prospective places, and Satishs door closed which indicates to his mother he went to bed.
Just I believe from the very beginning the Twitty brigade drove the investigation, and I wonder if the boys would have said everything, all embarressing details had not the Fab 7 showed up as well hollering at the Van Der Sloot gate. The attack put everyone on the defense.
I don't know. I'm wondering like everyone else, but I definitely can not see these boys committing a perfect crime. There's another angle altogether.
Hi Arubannse! I wasn't ignoring you. Enjoy your trip this summer.
Posted by: a..incanada | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:30 PM
You don't leave a girl on the beach by herself....his story should be consistent with the Kalpoes....stop making excuses for Joran
Posted by: ultra7 | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:36 PM
Yes, I always thought it was a text, but now I read that regarding the ABC interview it was an e-mail! Perhaps they made a mistake reporting this.
Posted by: annie | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:37 PM
Hi Arubannse! I wasn't ignoring you. Enjoy your trip this summer.
Posted by: a..incanada | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:30 PM
Hahahha...Don't worry sweety...and thank you:-)
Posted by: Arubaanse | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:47 PM
I'm watching Chris Cuomo's interview right now.
So his final version, as of tonight, is he goes to the club and she is on the stage dancing, asks him to dance with her, asks him to take a jelly shot off her, he does, they go to the other end of the bar where he orders her a shot of 151 Bacardi. Bar is closing, she doesn't want to go back to the hotel so she gets in the car with Joran and the two brothers. They start making out, he kissed her first. He wanted to take her back to his house for sex but then changed his mind, afraid his brothers and fathers would be awake. Natalee wants to "see sharks" and wants to go to the lighthouse. (that one is cryptic) They go to the beach where they are dropped off. They are making out on the beach by the fisherman's hut, he asks her if she wants to have sex and she is "okay with it". Then he didn't have a condom so no sex. He wants to go home because he has school the next day, calls his friend to pick him up. He left her on the beach. That's his version.
Posted by: FloridaPatty | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 10:37 PM
He is too flat emotionally every time he talks about Natalee, the only emotion he shows is when he's talking about how aweful her family is and how they were the ones not acting normally.
He talks about this like he is an observer not a participant, very removed, no empathy so far at all for the missing girl or her mother.
I don't think he is innocent or telling the truth.
Posted by: xxx | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 10:48 PM
xxx, agree with your observation.
Posted by: roy | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Posted by: JW | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 08:53 PM
Nice story though, but now with the proof and evidence.
Posted by: MF | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 11:02 PM
OK....so let me get this straight: They're fooling around, touching each other's genitals, and HE asks her if she wants to have sex, upon which she says yes. But he then says that he can't because he doesn't have a condom.
1) So she wants to have sex without a condom but he doesn't (usually the other way around)
2) He mentioned the topic of sex while they were hot and bothered but just for fun...he wasn't planning on going through with the act. It was a bluff or something.
whatever...........
Posted by: NoCondomNoSex | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 11:10 PM
Dan, anything is possible in this case. However, I have to ask myself why Joran would have covered for the Kalpoe's and not left them out to dry? He clearly had good connections through his father to cover himself if it was indeed true that the Kalpoe's raped and killed Natalee. He could have been cleared and would not still be considered a suspect today. Therefore, I believe he does still have a more specific connection to the case. It wouldn't make sense for him to take the "heat" for them. They are low men on the totem pole over in Aruba, especially compared to his father and all of his connections. I just don't see him covering for them. So that puts him back in the scene, unless none of the three of them are involved, in which case who did it and why would they lie and lie and lie. All we know is that Joran continues to discredit himself over and over with his lack of keeping his facts and stories straight.
I just wish for Natalee's memory/sake, that the truth would come out and it would be clear to everyone that it is the truth and that her parents would be given answers they so desperately seek.
Posted by: annie | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 01:53 AM
and besides just those nasty sandjiggets WHAT about those damn Alabama wilderness chickens!!!!!!!! those broads know much more than they let ooze out of they mouths!!! interogate againand again until the Alabama wilderness chickens get flustered and afraid and then SMASH it down on them that theyd better spill it, this was no little innocent fun party it was a mangett all out who gets with who and backastabbers of the female kind.
Posted by: tin-cup | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 02:26 AM
Joran save your family....throw Daddy overboard
Posted by: boywonder | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 06:39 AM
Maybe he lied to cover up his cheating on his girlfriend and his sneaking out of the house and to keep the mob in front of house from beating him up instead of the supposed rape and murder. Once he sarted lying if he told the truth he would be considered a suspect because of his dishonesty. He had to change his story when it started to fall apart and therefore everyone assumes he was hiding the rape and murder maybe he was still trying to hide the disappointment his father mother and girlfriend would have in him if they knew what his plans were and that he left her at the beach. Maybe he really did not want anyone to know he picked up a girl in a bar for a one night stand (which everyone thinks makes him this monster, as if its that uncommon)I believe thats the only thing he is hiding until someone shows me more proof. I think some more time should be spent on the fishermen that were on a boat in the midlle of the night and had acces to the nets and the traps and such that were in the huts. Maybe that would explain why nothing can be found on the island shoes,hair,clothing, blood, bones murder weapon. Maybe she was not killed on the island. As far as his shoes, I have an 18 year old son and he still has no perception of the dollar. If he had to make an effort to go back and get his shoes he would probably tell me they washed out to shore before he would make a trip back to look for them.
Posted by: Cheryl | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 02:13 PM
I would like to make the point that the last posting from the person calling themselves 'annie' is not the same 'annie' who was posting earlier on here, and I do not share the sentiments of this last posting. I just hope that somebody is not posting and making out that it is me.
Posted by: annie | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 02:26 PM
"She put her hands in my pants I put my hands in hers"
TMI(too much information)!
GROSS!
Posted by: micah | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Just read this post Dan, even though it's been up for a few days.
All I have to say to this particular post is: AMEN, Dan!
Posted by: justthefactspls | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 09:10 PM
I think Joran was totally convincing...remember he was only 17 years old...why did he leave Natalee on the beach...because she did not want to leave...an adult (18) American traveling alone to a foreign country on vacation....and he had to get home because he was out too late on a school night...he was in high school.....this is a kid....maybe he was afraid he would get in trouble if he got home too late and missed school....and why didn't he tell right away....what teenagers do you know who would tell their parents...oh yeah, I went to the beach with a girl I just met to have (or try to have) sex with her....I really doubt JOran had a plan to pick up Natalee and harm, rape or kill her....there are PLENTY of young female tourists in Aruba who are very excited to date etc. the local young men.....remember he is a kid in high school......
Posted by: celery | Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 12:11 AM
i think Joran was totally unconvincing. why did he lie about her whereabouts. why did he lie about the black guards. His mother said he had no girlfriend. oops, another slipup. Evidence of lying is evidence of guilt. What part of lying did you not hear during the interview.
Posted by: jackson80 | Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Dan, you are forgetting that Joran is subject to the Aruba Court. Nothing is going to happen to him even if he trips on his lies to ABC or others. As a pure PR play, they are counting on the short attention span of the American viewing public to only just remember that some guy was on protesting his innocence and that should be enough to dull the boycott and stall further interest in Natalee's fate. The points that Joran made were all to fog the allegations in the JQK suit. As for Deepak and Kalpoe, they both know the gory details of what happened to Nat, therefore Paulus has deigned to help them stay out of Court.
Posted by: jackson80 | Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Hogwash. American police respond to all missing persons reports IMMEDIATELY,
Posted by: Bitsey | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 07:01 PM
Only with evidence of foul play, which there was none.
Posted by: skepticynic | Tuesday, February 28, 2006 at 04:36 PM
"She put her hands in my pants I put my hands in hers"
TMI(too much information)!
GROSS!
Posted by: micah | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Inquiring minds had to know....but ewwwww.
Posted by: skepticynic | Tuesday, February 28, 2006 at 04:39 PM
"She put her hands in my pants I put my hands in hers"
TMI(too much information)!
GROSS!
Posted by: micah | Friday, February 24, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Inquiring minds had to know....but ewwwww.
Posted by: skepticynic | Tuesday, February 28, 2006 at 04:39 PM