| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/07/2005 6:33:48 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Thread 13: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458835/posts |
Posted on 08/02/2005 7:55:42 AM PDT by TexKat
With all the $$$$ it takes to gamble regularly, Natalee's death looks like the tip of a vader Sloot Uruban mafia drug running family business. This could explain the way the police?? have handled thing as they should know who's who and perhaps even have some involvement.
It could also explain the reluctance of ordinary citizens to come forward with information, fearing reprisals. It could also explain the arrogance of Joran, his mother's total oblivion to his behavior and the father's proactive stance and the "need" for his legal background. Advice on case; get ahold of financial records and trace the $$$$$.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Just hours ago, Joran van der Sloot (search) and Deepak Kalpoe (search) were in court. Their lawyers argued that the FBI should not have full access to documents or evidence in the Natalee Holloway (search) case. We caught up with Joran van der Sloot's lawyer outside the courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
In terms of information that the prosecution is obliged to turn over to you, are you satisfied everything's been turned over to you that should be turned over?
ANTONIO CARLO, JORAN VAN DER SLOOT'S ATTORNEY: No. Today, also, we had a summary proceeding, which was also heard by the judge today, where we complained formally that, in our opinion, the defense is not getting full and/or timely access to the documentation in the case. The judge is going to decide on our complaint, so we are awaiting the response of the judge, the decision of the judge.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you expect that decision to come today, with the issue of the FBI, as to whether or not the prosecution is turning over everything it should to you?
CARLO: No, again, the issue of the FBI intervention is a separate issue.
VAN SUSTEREN: Right.
CARLO: This was a separate proceeding.
VAN SUSTEREN: But do you expect both decisions this afternoon?
CARLO: This afternoon or early tomorrow morning. The judge did not give an indication as to when he was going to render his decision, but soon.
VAN SUSTEREN: Between now and September 4, what do you do for your client strategically as you await September 4?
CARLO: OK. Of course, you know, we are not going to go into detail and disclose what our strategy is going to be. But right now, our role and our duty is to protect and defend the rights of our clients, and that is what we propose to do and, you know, advise and assist our client in all ways necessary.
VAN SUSTEREN: Clients come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, easy to get along with, easy to work with. Is there a way to describe this client and your working relationship with him?
CARLO: He is a nice guy. He is a nice guy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAN SUSTEREN: The suspects were not required to show up in court today. We saw Joran van der Sloot enter the courthouse through the back door in custody, in handcuffs, and Deepak Kalpoe walked through the front door with his lawyer, but Satish Kalpoe did not attend. Earlier today, we spoke with Satish's lawyer, David Kock, and talked to him about how the prosecutor is handling the case.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
She told me today — I mean, and granted, it was not the most comfortable of settings, but as she walked out of the courthouse and I stuck a mike in her face, basically, I asked her if she was confident of her case, and she said, yes, indeed, she was confident. Do you get the sense she's confident, or do you just think that's sort of grandstanding by a prosecutor leaving a courtroom?
DAVID KOCK, SATISH KALPOE'S ATTORNEY: I don't think the prosecutor would have taken this action and then come out of the court and saying she's not confident. Although by that, I don't mean to say that she's not but she just says she is. It's hard for me to judge what her opinion is. From what I heard her present today, I think she believes that she has acted correctly. I don't think she thinks otherwise and presents it in a different way. We just don't share her opinion. But you know we are free to do that, too.
VAN SUSTEREN: What does their case consist of? We know that it consists of interrogations, and from the interrogations, the best that we can conclude on the outside is that there are inconsistent statements internally, that Joran's made different statements on different occasions. We know there's no body suggesting a murder. We know that no one knows where Natalee is. Is there any forensic evidence or any physical evidence you've been presented with to suggest that Natalee is not alive?
KOCK: Not at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any forensic evidence you've been presented with to show that Joran van der Sloot knows where she is?
KOCK: Not evidence. I think that this is a very logical assumption.
VAN SUSTEREN: But evidence?
KOCK: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any evidence — any physical evidence — to tie your client to Natalee Holloway?
KOCK: Of course, they were in the car priorly. But you're talking after that, I assume?
VAN SUSTEREN: Right.
KOCK: Not at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any physical evidence to tie your client's brother to Natalee, other than being in the car?
KOCK: Not that I know of.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any physical evidence to suggest a crime?
KOCK: Physical evidence? Not that I know of.
VAN SUSTEREN: Based on your conversations with the prosecution and what the prosecution turned over to you, at best you can say only that Natalee Holloway isn't here in front of us, or at least, we don't know where, I guess.
KOCK: Correct. And then we make certain assumptions.
VAN SUSTEREN: But assumptions aren't evidence, necessarily. I mean, we might make assumptions, but I take it that assumptions are not evidence in an Aruban court.
KOCK: No. They are sufficient to trigger an investigation. They are sufficient to detain suspects. But they're not sufficient to sentence someone.
VAN SUSTEREN: If you're a betting man, do you expect on September 4, the state of the evidence, that Joran van der Sloot goes home?
KOCK: I would prefer not to give an answer on that question. I think because of all that's happening in this case, it's not going to be such an easy decision either to let him go or to keep him.
VAN SUSTEREN: But usually, you would detain someone, I suspect, in an investigation if there's evidence to support that the person's involved in a crime. So you at least need some evidence of a crime and some evidence of a connection of the person to the crime.
KOCK: Yes, you need suspicion, according to our laws. The evidence doesn't have to be hard evidence in this phase of the investigation.
VAN SUSTEREN: So it's enough that you are the last person with a missing person, so we're suspicious of you.
KOCK: If you can sum it up, it's like that.
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of working with your client — I've said this to other defense lawyers — clients come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, all different kinds. How do you describe your client?
KOCK: I describe him — he's a very young boy, you know, soft-spoken. And I have no reasons to doubt in what he's telling me up to now. So you know, I think he's going to come — as it stands today — that he's going to be all right.
VAN SUSTEREN: Have you spoken to his brother at all or had any interaction with his brother?
KOCK: Not interaction. I mean, today I met him at court, you know? I tried to keep things separately, and I try not to be involved with other parties.
VAN SUSTEREN: How come Satish wasn't here today? Deepak was there, and Joran obviously was there. He was brought in custody. But how come your client didn't show up?
KOCK: It was not required for him to show up today. It was a total technical issue, judicial issue. He didn't have any answers to give. So you know, we said, Why let him go through this today? There was no need, in our opinion.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, we sort of expected either both brothers not to show up or both brothers to show up. So we sort of wondered why one did and one didn't.
KOCK: I think every attorney has a different strategy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Ever since days ago when I found out the surveillance tape was either broken or turned off. But did ALE ask any questions at the HI about that? I doubt it.
I have nothng personal against Nancy Grace. It seems as if she is conducting a courtroom questioning. She is boisterous, doesn't give a person time to answer. No wonder it's confusing to the interviewee. Always in a hurry.
"...Joran, his mother's total oblivion to his behavior...."
I don't believe THAT for an instant.....first, she is his mother....second, she has worked at the bery school he has attended, WHILE he attended.
Anita van der sloot knows VERY well what her son is....she has watched him progress toward it like no other person on the face of the earth could. She is not in denial....she is a liar.....perhaps she is ignorant of the specific facts in THIS instance, but she knows very well what she has produced.
The first time I heard anything about the possiblity of a break in the tape was when Jug stated last week that the principal at Joran's school supposedly told Jug's friends that Joran had said the was the case. This is like 4th hand information. Has it been confirmed that there was a break in the tape? And even if there was, Joran has already admitted that they did not take her back there. What it says, if true, is that Joran was trying to pad the original lie that he had told the family on 05/31/05.
MAWG, are you a longshoreman? Why get vulgar here? It is not funny, (YOUR LANGUAGE).
More from the search of Paul Van der Sloot’s neighbor’s property. Not only was the old water reservoir searched, but the sewer was as well. Seen in the above picture and the many that follow is Equusearch using “Vision Stick” to search in areas that could never be seen by plain human site.
The telescopic arm allows the camera on the end to be able to reach not only areas above the septic area but also allows it to be submerged beneath in to the sewer water. This provides amazingly clear pictures of the bottom of the sewer as well as.
The above picture shows Joe Houston of EquuSearch extending the telescopic arm of the “Vision Stick” while looking at the video display seeing all that is within the sewer water. All things considered the image displays were as clear to see.
Wasn't NG an attorney? That could explain it. I like her personally, just find her style a little frenetic for my taste, is all.
If I asked you this before forgive me but are you from Mountain Brook, Alabama? Would you be one of the MBHS students?
I think that to call this woman a liar is ridiculous. Quite a few parents, and I have known a few, are naive to their children's activities and they are not liars, they are just parents who love their children and see the good side of them. So if it turns out that Natalee was voluntarily drunk, gambling, willingly left with strangers, and it is found this is her typical behavior when away from her home, it then makes her parents liars?
I was a longshoreman the summer after High School. Now, sadly, I'm just an old POO POO Head. Thanks for askin.
I'm thinking it may be that he didn't admit no taking her to the HI until he knew for sure that the tape was not going to show anything. Whatever was wrong with the tape was not coincidental. It was planned.
The media only told us that NH was not on the tape, not that there was anything wrong with it. No surprise there. JVDS has lied at least 22 times and we don't know all the variations, do we?
Your private email to me was not nearly so nice as what you posted hear. I will say this to you right now....Don NOT under any circumstances send me another private eamil. I have saved that one and some of you nasty posts to others on this thread. DO NOT ever email me again. Do not post to me ever again on this or any thread.
This makes three days in a row where someone has to get unruly. I'm sorry to see it. I'll be taking a little rest from posting for awhile. Maybe it will look better the next time.
I am only stating that the seemingly charges on this board about the girls being jealous of Nat and implying that they were in collusion with the criminals are preposterous! One needs not be from Alabama to defend them. Is this your reason for asking?
Sometimes this thread is like Carlos and Charlies without the music or the fun. That's why I have lowered my profile.
I dont think the tape was broken, Beth said she reviewed the tapes and later the Police reviewed them..nothing was said about a break, only that she didn't see Joran etc..seems like maybe Joran lied to the headmaster and invented the story about the break in the tape when telling him his tale..and later it was found out he was lying..
BTW, just what do you mean by 'what she has produced'? What other trouble has Joran been in? I'm unaware of anything prior to this.
I believe the interview you are talking about was on MSNBC /Scarborough and it was discussed here before as being diced and sliced..this is the interview with Greta
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160385,00.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.