ABRAMS: Now the latest in the story of the missing Alabama teen, Natalee Holloway. At this time tomorrow, the prosecution's lead suspect could be free. Tomorrow afternoon, three judges will announce a decision as to whether to release Dutch teen Joran van der Sloot, the only person in custody in connection with the case. They'll also decide if brothers Satish and Deepak Kalpoe, who were arrested with Joran and were released last week, will be re-arrested. And what about this new evidence that we hear about presented at today's hearing.
Joining me now with the latest, NBC's Michelle Kosinski.
Michelle, what do you know about what was presented to the judges yesterday?
MICHELLE KOSINSKI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we were hearing was sort of tantalizing. It was put out there as new developments, new evidence by the prosecution that would indicate that they were furthering their case before this court of appeals.
But here's the catch. In this system, prosecutors were not required to put out any new evidence. This is simply appeals court judges reviewing the exact same evidence that the lower court had. But the prosecutors were required to put out anything new that they were able to get.
So to make that clear, they didn't have to present anything new but if they had something new, then they have to present it. So this new evidence which we know now is in the form of witness statements, some new witness statements in the case, it's out there but it doesn't necessarily benefit the prosecution's case. They could be neutral. They could be things that were already know, but they had to present it.
And that's what we're hearing from all of the attorneys. And that's really what we rely on to get our information, the attorneys for all three of these boys.
ABRAMS: We don't - I was going to say - sorry to interrupt.
KOSINSKI: Go ahead.
ABRAMS: We don't know anything about what these witness statements say, right?
KOSINSKI: Not at all. But here's what we do know from those attorneys. They all say, hey, it doesn't pertain to my client, all across the board, and it's not anything substantial to the case. So it could be neutral. But then again, they want to protect their client. So they're saying, well, my client wasn't involved and, you know, whatever was revealed by those statements.
One attorney was very coy when we asked, well, does it pertain to any of the other suspects in this case. Didn't want to answer that question and most questions about that evidence, they don't want to answer because they're really not supposed to. All of this, remember, is behind closed doors.
So there is new evidence out there, we just don't know how important it will be to prosecutors, if important at all.
ABRAMS: All right, Michelle Kosinski, thanks a lot.
ABRAMS: We're back with more on the Aruban investigation into Alabama teen Natalee Holloway's disappearance. Tomorrow, we expect to hear the decision of three appeals court judges who, as we speak, are considering whether to release lead suspect Joran van der Sloot, and maybe even re-arrest brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe.
Joining me now is Aruban Attorney Lincoln Gomez.
Lincoln, thanks for coming back on the program.
All right, let's take these one-by-one. Let's start with the issue of Joran van der Sloot. His lawyer appealing, saying that he should be released. That the lower court judge got it wrong by ordering that he remain detained for another 60 days. Is it a long-shot argument from his attorneys?
LINCOLN GOMEZ, ARUBAN ATTORNEY: Well, you know, it's the same facts
being presented to this time a three-judge panel. And it could go either way. This three-judge panel may very well find that indeed the evident is too thin and could then order the release of Joran van der Sloot
ABRAMS: How significant is it that they're looking at new witness statements?
GOMEZ: Well, again, we don't know the contents of those statements. But, you know, the question is, are they really incriminating towards, in this case, Joran van der Sloot. If they're not, then they may not have that big of an impact in the decision-making process.
ABRAMS: What about the Kalpoe brothers? The prosecutors arguing that the lower court judge made a mistake in releasing them. Tough argument for prosecutors to make to say re-arrest them?
GOMEZ: Well, it's tough to send somebody back in once they've been released. But, again, it's the same factors being presented and it could go, again, either way. Statistically speaking, about 90 percent of these type of appeals are just confirmed by the appellant court. So the overturn ratio, it's about 10 percent here. So there's not a lot of chance of dramatic changes there tomorrow.
ABRAMS: Is it higher one way or the other? Meaning, is it generally statistically harder to get someone rearrested than it is to have someone freed?
GOMEZ: No, once the first judge has gone through it and has taken a decision, only in 10 percent of the times, either way, that decision will be reversed. And if you go back and look at, for instance, the Joran van der Sloot case, compared to the Kalpoe brothers, there the evidence was deemed too thin in the part of the Kalpoe brothers. As far as Joran van der Sloot, the question is, what is still holding him there. And one possible explanation for that is the risk of collusion.
ABRAMS: Judges are human beings. We like to think that they only look at the law but there's always . . .
GOMEZ: We would like to think that.
ABRAMS: Yes, there's always a level of discretion that comes into this. How do you think that the profile of this case, the fact that the world is watching, could impact these judges in terms of making them more or less likely to free someone or re-arrest someone? Do you think it's going to make them more prone in being tough in the sense of keep van der Sloot behind bars and maybe even re-arresting the Kalpoe brothers?
GOMEZ: I think - I think the scrutiny that they're facing and the pressure they're under to make sure, knowing that the world is watching, to make the right decision. To make a conscious decision and to make a good decision, regardless of whether or not, you know, people from different sides may like that decision.
ABRAMS: Hey, Lincoln, can lawyers in - do lawyers in Aruba go to work with polo shirts on? I love that idea if they do.
GOMEZ: Well, it's nice and fresh here.
ABRAMS: Thanks for coming back. We appreciate it.
GOMEZ: Bye-bye.
Now for the show news... if you are reading this blog before noon, we are on a plane headed back to Aruba (search) (and hopefully dodging the tropical storm in the region.) I don't know what time my colleagues traveling with me got up, but I got up at 3:45 a.m. to catch this early flight... but fortunately I can sleep on planes. (While the lack of sleep is hard, it is not nearly as bad as what Natalee's family is going through. Hence I am not complaining... just giving you details.) We did not learn that we would be going to Aruba until about 5 p.m. Wednesday afternoon.
Our plan is to be on the ground in Aruba before the court issues its decisions on the detention of the three suspects (one is in custody, two are free.) We will learn as soon as we land where we will go — but it won't be the hotel. We won't get to check into our rooms until after our show at 11 p.m. The whole point of the trip is to get information so we go directly from the airport to our search for information. (Note that we always have the same conversation late in the day on the first day of our road trips — "Did anyone tell the hotel we are a late check in?" The answer is always no because none of us ever remembers to do so. Then we all get nervous that our rooms have been rented to others since we failed to check or notify the hotel of a late check in. As I write this I am making a mental note to call the hotel upon our arrival and give them the heads up that we won't be there until 11 p.m. — after the show.)