And no positive end to the investigation insight, or so it appears.
What all this does suggest is that authorities may be giving up making a case against Joran Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes and are simply exhausting every minor lead before possibly closing things down.
And in another revelation about the case, ABC News reports that van Cromvoirt's arrest came after police were tipped off by a cabdriver, who said that while driving Holloway and her friends one night she heard Holloway talking about being in love with a "Dutch boy."
Police interviewed Holloway's friends in Alabama, who confirmed the cabdriver's account and offered a physical description of the man Holloway said she loved.
This also tells you a little about Fox's alleged reporting on this case. They had more access than anyone, including access to the Mountain Brook students. But we never learned facts like the above from them. Why?
Because when you agree to abide by the dictates of your sources, you aren't reporting, you're simply telling a story someone wants people to believe. So much for journalism. Why I even bother to expect it from these evening cable outlets is beyond me.


"The media alluded to it early in the investigation"
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Some of you are such simple idiots. Did you read what I quoted as regards this boy:
"Police interviewed Holloway's friends in Alabama, who confirmed the cabdriver's account and offered a physical description of the man Holloway said she loved."
Yet you question the can driver, what a joke some of you are..
Posted by: Dan | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:00 PM
***********************
Ok, Dan, you posted a quote. Where is that quote from? You gave no url or source. And, for you to call your posters "simple idiots" only shows the public what kind of host you are. Did your mother not teach you any manners?
Posted by: sarah | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:31 PM
Profiler, No one disputes that she may have SAID that. Teenage girls say things like that about cute boys. It doesn't mean they are really in love.
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:31 PM
I dont know about anyone else...but when I go on vacation, I will call my mom a few times (and I am a grown ass woman)! If they were as close as Beth claims, why didnt she call? Not even to say she made it there?? Seems odd. Or a lie.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:31 PM
She was only suppose to be gone for five days, Tara. It is not unusual not to call every night when you are trying to become independent.
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:33 PM
It doesnt matter how long she is gone! Common courtesy is to make a call home when you arrive to let them know you are there and safe. Even "independent" people do that! Not saying she had to call her everyday, but maybe call at least once to say..."Hey, miss you, having fun...Bye"
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:37 PM
Sarah:
That quote is in numerous news articles today. It appears to have come from law enforcement.
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:40 PM
ABC says GVC stayed quiet all week. It sounds like his detention accomplished nothing but the public revelation that Natalee was struck by this guy (literally and figuratively).
Dan (and others),
Since nothing appears to tie GVC to Natalee's disappearance, and he doesn't know the primary suspects, I am not sure why you think the media should have reported on it.
Posted by: DennisAOK | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:41 PM
Its very telling to me that GVC kept his mouth shut the entire week. Having worked in and around the criminal justice system for over 20 years, there is usually only one reason a suspect pleads the 5th. They feel they have nothing to gain by answering the questions and only something to lose. Now ask yourself, if you were a 19 yr old GVC and had absolutely nothing to hide, why hide behind the wall of silence? Why isnt somebody talking about this? Very strange to me.
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:45 PM
GvC pleading the 5th- good point you made -profiler. JVS continues to talk. Hmmm? Makes you wonder. Like others I wish to see the trip photos and and MB kids statements.
Posted by: TJ | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:48 PM
You would think GVC would say "NO, I dont have anything to do with this...all I know is this..." (if he is in fact innocent) Do they mean he didnt say ANYTHING all week? Then how can they let him go?? Did they get bored and release him???
It seems No one wants to admit the fact that GVC's dad is head of security systems in Aruba, inclduing the system at HI that very night! And, GVC "patrols" the beaches to keep them safe. Or that he knows Steve Croes. Or that his sister is a cop. But, nope we still blame only Joran, cause he told a lie back in the day.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:50 PM
When will Tito Lacle, reporter for Aruba Today, be arrested for impersonating Johnny Mathis?
Posted by: Saigon | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:51 PM
And everytime I happened to see GVC on TV, it was either him with a cover on his face...or him in pics with plenty of female tourists. Both dont look good!
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:51 PM
Mountain Brook Kids Please Stand Up! I cannot believe they would protect their privacy over the life of their missing friend Natalee and all the people this affects. MB kids - Please tell us your story and show us your photos. If the cops cannot solve this - the people can!!!
Posted by: TJ | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:57 PM
Profiler - to be fair, JVS was mute most of his internment in prison as well. He talked early on, but all that amounted to was more confusion and inconsistencies. I suspect GVC's family has been following this case from the beginning, as well as him. He probably had an inkling that silence is best in this case because it seems the ALE takes things out of context and confuses everyone. I cannot fault him for his silence. It doesn't say anything to me about his level of guilt. It only says he wised up from watching this case. ;-)
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:59 PM
Shari - you are correct that someone spent the night in Joran's apartment that night (or so it was reported) and it was supposed to be Freddy. That is probably why there is a lot of interest in Freddy after reading the transcript between the boys.
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:01 PM
Profiler - on Nancy Grace, the ALE reported that GVC was cooperative and did give a statement to the police. He wasn't "silent".
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:05 PM
anniewka, how does this jive with numerous published reports today that say he didnt answer questions?
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:11 PM
I believe that was speculation. The reporter on her show (actually I think it was a producer) said he spoke with the ALE direct and several sources in both the ALE and prosecutor's office did admit that GVC had been very cooperative and had given a statement. So I suspect it was just "spin" by other shows?
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:17 PM
It was reported that A.B. that was brought in this past weekend has been seen in numerous photos with Joran. Any idea who that is?
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Dompig on Nancy Grace confirms the 3 boys are still the main suspects. He said it was not just lies -- but "NUMEROUS" (he even repeated "NUMEROUS") descrepancies in their stories. ALE says GVC was very cooperative. GVC's attorney says he had NO contact w/ Natalee. Who actually confirms that MB kids backed-up cabbie statement -- sounds like more Julia Renfro drivel to me.
Posted by: wreck | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:22 PM
There's no doubt there were discrepancies in their stories.
Once you begin on a foundation of lies, then, nothing they said could be deemed as reliable. There was also a likelihood that the Kalpoes were played against Joran, and vica versa. It can be reasoned that their actions, even continued lies, are not unusual for boys their age, under those circumstances. However, it doesn't rise to the level of proving a crime occurred.
Posted by: exilesanctuary.com | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:39 PM
exiles - well there is a "crime" that has occurred, it is the crime of "obstruction of justice" which is prosecutable here in the US, but I guess not in Aruba. I agree that their lies and inconsistencies can be viewed many ways, just kids all the way to criminals, but bottom line, it is because of their "game playing" that they have cost this case far too much: 1) because of them the probably of resolution for this case would probably take a miracle; 2) cost the US government, the Aruban government and the Dutch government a fortune in searches; 3) cost tension in the Aruban people and the US people and the list goes on. True, they may not have raped or killed Natalee, but they definitely show really poor morales and judgment. Sure this is a serious case, but they have treated this case as if it was a "game" and that is what is frustrating. Had they, after they got caught in that first lie, came "clean" and had their stories matched, then I believe most people would have moved on and been willing to look at other possible suspects. The reason the ALE always comes back to them, and the family comes back to them is because of their lies and inconsistencies. They were the last to be seen with her leaving C&C's and some how the girl just seems to have vaporized since because they certainly have not given anyone a satisfactory account of what happened after.
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:47 PM
Now Joe T wants to sue Beth for slander of JVS. HAHAHAHAHA
You know JT and JVDS are toast in the lawsuit
If they feel so strongly that Beth slandered them, file a counter-suit in the NY lawsuit
You know JT is full of BS if he doesnt counter-sue in the NY lawsuit. Suing in Aruba also means BS, since they could refute all the charges in the NY suit (which they cant)
There have been so many lies about Natalee....and so many lies covering up for JVDS
Oh oh...hope Joe T doesnt sue me haha
Posted by: DoorMart | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 06:35 PM
JT would never sue the Twitty/Holloways if he did that would mean Joran would have to take the stand and answer questions under oath risking perjury and more than likely landing himself in jail. He can make all the idle threats he wants but I'd bet my life that he has not nor will ever have any intention to try and sue the the Holloway/Twitty's. He is nothing more than a windbag of empty threats simply trying to spin the media away from his client all the while gaining exposure for himself everynight on the MSM. Although from what I've seen his exposure via the MSM has done him alot more harm then good.
Cheers
Posted by: meso | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:47 PM
from what I've seen his exposure via the MSM has done him alot more harm then good.
Cheers
Posted by: meso | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:47 PM
I agree that Joe has done both he and Joran more harm than good so far in the media. He may have turned things around briefly, but the more he is aired, the more people are going "WHAT?" Joe would be smart to go back to working behind the scenes at this point because he isn't doing his client or himself any good.
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:51 PM
I think the word "love" is probably being thrown around very loosely in this instance. Natalee's own friends weren't even aware of this persons name, which makes it very likely that there wasn't even any sort of a relationship between her and this person. More than likely this is just a person that she found attractive, but had no serious interest in.
Posted by: bryan | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:52 PM
I dont know about anyone else...but when I go on vacation, I will call my mom a few times (and I am a grown ass woman)! If they were as close as Beth claims, why didnt she call? Not even to say she made it there?? Seems odd. Or a lie.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 07:31 PM
Are you aware overseas calls cost as much as 20$ U.S. a minute? You strike me as very naive from reading your posts you seem to conclude Joran is innocent simply because you think he's "cute", Perhaps Natalee thought the same when she decided to leave with him that night? For your own sake I hope you aren't planning a trip to Aruba anytime soon my dear.
Posted by: meso | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:54 PM
bryan - I agree. I think she was just talking about a guy she found "hot" and probably never even met him, but liked his looks. My teens always talk that way. They are "in love" with people they never met, talked to or even were in the same place other than in a lane of traffic. Girls that age say that so freely, but certainly don't really mean it.
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Good luck to everyone in your search for answers, I've pretty much resolved myself to the fact that their never will be any answers to this case as it becomes painfully obvious that the ALE wants no answers to be found. Beth Twitty has the right idea, do your best to keep this case alive because the damage this does to Aruba is the only form of justice Natalee will ever recieve.
Cheers
Posted by: meso | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:04 PM
Annie, all good points.
Meso, you have good arguments, too, but, I think JT truly believes that Joran is not guilty of harming Natalee. If one is innocent, as Joran claims, and JT believes him, that he should proceed with a civil suit. Joran's willingness to go before Greta, and answer tough questions, indicated to me that he wanted to clear his name. Maybe I am naiive, and I could be dead wrong, but, that's my view of him, that he is not guilty of hurting Natalee.
The only touchy thing about suing the victim's family is that most people have tremendous sympathy to people who lost a beloved child, no matter what they say. Any one of us could understand how under their situation, they would be led to believe these boys have to know more, and even be the ones who are responsible. Joe T. would have to approach them delicately, to minimize the perception of imposing more burdens on them, after all they've been through, already. I don't think they've done the right thing, calling Joran a rapist and serial predator, but, I'm not in their shoes. Who knows how much bitterness and anger is involved in this case? It seems like it would be maddening.
However, at some point, if Joran is innocent, and this has ruined his life, he deserves an opportunity to fight for his reputation, and redeem his life, which has just begun. Just because people are victims, doesn't automatically entitle them to infringe on someone else's liberty, or reputation, even with these boys still being victims. Even in Aruba, they deserve the presumption of innocence, and an opportunity for a fair trial.
Most decent people can relate to how incomprehensibly tragic it would be to have a missing child, presumed dead from foul play. It must be a nightmare to have a child accused of a hidious crime, and constantly referred to as a serial predator, too. Joe T.'s job is help this family, protect their rights, and a chance for Joran to clear his name, if he's innocent. Sure he lied, and he behaved in a selfish manner, but, if he didn't harm Natalee, he shouldn't have to be another victim in this case, no matter how bereaved Natalee's loved ones are.
Posted by: exilesanctuary.com | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:08 PM
"Are you aware overseas calls cost as much as 20$ U.S. a minute? You strike me as very naive from reading your posts you seem to conclude Joran is innocent simply because you think he's "cute", Perhaps Natalee thought the same when she decided to leave with him that night? For your own sake I hope you aren't planning a trip to Aruba anytime soon my dear."
LOL LOL. I have been to Aruba twice...I am aware of the costs. I am also aware that there are phone cards sold on every corner, At 18, I dont know if I would have even been allowed to travel to an island with friends. BUT if I was, you can bet my mom would have given me the $20 to make the call to her once I got there. I certainly did not say she had to call everyday. That is just what I tend to do....
And, because I mentioned oNCE that Joran was handsome, b/c someone else had...doesnt mean thats my basis for thinking he is innocent. In fact, I think GVC is much nicer looking, but I feel he is guilty of more than Joran...so there goes that theory.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:16 PM
Dr. Phil ain't no republican! He was a very big Kerry supporter. As for this case it is like a dog chasing his tail. Nothing ever happens except going around and around and around.
Posted by: Kelly3 | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:18 PM
Oh, and I love how when someone here dont agree with another one's opinion they get call them stupid, close minded, uneducated and naive! I have seen it done way too many times in the 2 days I have been coming here. Hilarious....
I think people on this site want to share their views, speculations, and opinions....casue lets face it, thats all we have!!! No reason for people to be acting holier than thou, when no one knows anymore than anyone else here.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:27 PM
Tara, that mentality gets to me, as well. Considering that agencies like the FBI, DOJ, and Dutch forensic specialists have all come up empty, doesn't alter the intolerant atmosphere. I'm no "fan" of Joran, or the Kalpoes, but, unless you echo the sentiments that they need to be strung up, you're subjected to petty personal insults. I understand how some believe J2K are guilty, but, there's only speculation in this case, with nothing more substantial to believe they killed Natalee. Few of us are affected by this case, or it's outcome, yet, some seem to take it all too personally. Not many would not want justice for Natalee, with Joran and the Kalpoes punished, if there were proof that they harmed Natalee. On the other hand, why isn't it considered fair to express an opinion about Joran and the Kalpoes being innocent, without being called names?
Posted by: exilesanctuary.com | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:40 PM
I think GVC is much nicer looking, but I feel he is guilty of more than Joran...so there goes that theory.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:16 PM
Why do you think GVC is guilty?
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Ditto Exile.
Posted by: TJ | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Ditto Exile.
Posted by: TJ | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:46 PM
On the other hand, why isn't it considered fair to express an opinion about Joran and the Kalpoes being innocent, without being called names?
Posted by: exilesanctuary.com | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:40 PM
I think it is fair. That is why I like this board. The others I read only allow mirror opinions.
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:49 PM
Why do you think GVC is guilty?
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:44 PM
I dont necessarily think GVC is guilty of commiting this crime. But with the stories I have heard about his "connections" on the island, like his dad with the security business and his sister the cop. And the fact he and Steve Croes obviously know OF each other is fishy. Steve Croes denies it completely. He seems guilty of *something*, even if it is just being guilty of having important information. But, since we just started hearing about GVC I cant make too much of a judgement against him, I guess.
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Have you heard anything about a new arrest today? I just read on another blog that Greta will have the story?? I don't know how true that is because the blog I read that on is not reliable.
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:53 PM
Just heard it on Fox. There was another arrest today. Greta will have the story.
Posted by: Skye | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:56 PM
Dr. Phil ain't no republican! He was a very big Kerry supporter. As for this case it is like a dog chasing his tail. Nothing ever happens except going around and around and around.
---------------------------
Kelly
You are wrong. Dr. Phil is a Republican. Check this out.
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Dr_Phil_McGraw.php
Posted by: Chortle | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 09:59 PM
Joe T. on Greta saying there's going to be an expensive lesson to be learned by many when the dust clears. Civil suits will be filed he assures Greta. Brings up the Richard Jewel case as an example.
Media likely not a target (qualified immunity); but talking heads/pundits could be.
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:09 PM
anyone else thinking this joe t guys job is going down the tube. lets say they file anything and they loose. thats his whole life on the line. everyones gonna remember him as the nutjob who put joran on a pedistool and lost.
he would have a set of brass joojoo's to go after beth. you really dont hear dave shouting things on the news alot. but i think hes a garded person in general.
Posted by: goodgirl. | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:19 PM
CNN's reporter in Aruba says the cab story is bogus. GVC was brought in for different reasons.
The case is going nowhere.
ALE is a joke.
Posted by: DennisAOK | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Speaking of civil suits, who exactly has the burden of proof in those cases? Would they have to prove Joran's innocence in order to show slander?
Posted by: bryan | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:33 PM
"you really dont hear dave shouting things on the news alot. but i think hes a garded person in general."
Yes. Daves seems like a mellow, respectable, educated guy. He makes good points, without yelling and making strong accusations, like his ex-wife. He seems to lean more towards fact, then speculations and doesnt lose his cool, from what I have seen.
He and Joe T are on opposite ends of the spectrum!!
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:38 PM
"CNN's reporter in Aruba says the cab story is bogus."
Is that an opinion? or has it been proven?
Posted by: Tara | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:39 PM
I wish these stations would do proper investigations before reporting ANYTHING because it seems everyone wants to "outscoop" each other that they are the ones responsible for most of the rumors going around. If CNN is correct and the cab story is bogus than what station reported that first? Was it FOX? How irresponsible!
Bryan - you raise a very good question. It seems that this case would have to have some sort of resolution or closure before "slander" could be proved.
Posted by: anniekwa | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:40 PM
The plaintiff has the burden of proof in a civil case. They must prove all the elements of the cause of action by a preponderance of evidence. In a slander suit, it is an absolute defense that the public statement is true. In most jurisdictions, in a slander/libel case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant said or wrote things about the plaintiff that were false and that were damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. Calling someone a rapist or murderer would be libel/slander per se if in fact those accusations were false. The media is protected by qualified immunity meaning that they can only be sued when they publish/broadcast slanderous/libelous statements when they know they are false or when they act with reckless disregard to the truth(remember the Paul Newman movie) Individuals that say those things through the media do not have such immunity.
Posted by: profiler | Monday, April 24, 2006 at 10:42 PM