| Only evidence can be
used in a trial.
A judge on a Dutch
three judge panel trial can only consider facts in evidence.
A judge must exclude all irrelevant information or circumstances, which
do not speak to the specifics of a crime and the culpability of the accused.
Facts not in evidence and most speculations are irrelevant.
The purpose of the hearing
is to determine, first," Has a crime been committed ? " A trial can
only be brought, based on evidence (presented by the prosecution), which
proves a missing person is dead, evidenced by a body or sufficient forensic
evidence to indicate that a murder took place. However, a trial could
also be brought without a body based on the testimony of credible witnesses
that such a crime was indeed committed.
Secondly, if it is determined
that the crime of murder was committed, the purpose of the court would
be to determine the guilt or innocence of the person accused of the murder
based solely on facts permitted in evidence. Circumstantial evidence
can be admitted into the trial, but a conviction based only on circumstantial
evidence is improbable unless there would be a convincing preponderance.
Any information, whether
factual of speculative, about the history of the missing person or the
accused, which would be considered unfairly prejudicial to the case will
be excluded from the court proceedings. |
What are the "facts in evidence?"
What could be offered as
evidence by the prosecution?
Although, other information
is known about the missing person and about the accused, only what the
court considers relevant will be allowed to be presented as evidence.
1. Late one Sunday
evening May 29, 2005 from about 9:00 PM until about 1:30 AM (now
Monday, May 30, 2005), an 18 year old girl, Natalee Holloway, a tourist
to Aruba, was last seen at a Carlos 'n Charlies, a restaurant and bar,
which is a popular eating, drinking and dancing establishment.
2. Natalee Holloway
was seen leaving at the closing time of the restaurant, which was about
1:30 AM, Monday May 30, with three local men ( Satish Kalpoe, Deepak Kalpoe
and Joran Van der Sloot). Deepak Kalpoe was driving.
Satish Kalpoe the front seat. Joran and Natalee were in the back
seat.
3. No witnesses state
that they saw anything irregular about the event of her leaving.
Natalee tells some of her fellow travelers and fellow bar attendees, who
inquired about her "well being" outside the bar that she is "ok."
Witnesses state that Ms Holloway does not appear to be impaired in any
way. She is heard to yell cheerfully, "Woo hoo Aruba!" from
the open car window as they depart. (This is not verifiable, it was,
however, based on reliable hearsay of comments made by students riding
the bus to the airport. The assumption is made that those statements would
be repeated in a trial).
4. In interview records
(made available to Kalpoe attorneys), several of Natalee's fellow student
travelers stated that as he was driving away, Deepak.stopped his car a
short distance away from the area,"at the intersection next to the
bus terminal" close to where Carlos 'n Charlies is located. They stated
that it was at this intersection, not far from C&C's, where a group
of the other students were waiting for taxis. Some of the students
asked Natalee to get out of the car and be with them. She refused. They
stated she said wanted to go for a drive with the three boys.
5. Natalee Holloway
missed her flight back to Alabama, failing to show up in the lobby of her
hotel for transportation to the airport at 10:30 AM the next day (Monday).
6. Between 3:00-5:00
am, the next morning (now Tuesday, May 31, 2005), Deepak Kalpoe and Joran
Van der Sloot, were confronted in the middle of the night outside
of the home of Joran Van der Sloot by a group of relatives and friends
of Natalee Holloway, all of whom had arrived a few hours earlier
from Natalee's home state of Alabama. The Alabama group was
there along with two local policemen.
7. According to several
witnesses, Deepak Kalpoe and Joran Van der Sloot told this group, where
and when they last saw Natalee. They say that they dropped
her off about 25-26 hours previously (2:00 AM Monday) in front of her hotel.
One witness, a local businessman, Charles Croes who was in the group,
is a key witness to Joran's comments, stating, " He told me that she had
been doing drugs and possibly been drinking, too." Croes also said,
" He repeated to me over and over again was his desire to help find her,
that if there's anything he could do to help find her, he would, just please
ask him, that kind of thing. It was a very scared young guy, who seemed
to be wanting to help." Croes was asked, "Is there anything that he told
you or he said that would suggest that he had any sort of inkling that
she was missing and there was some foul play? Croes answered, "No."
Statements revision history-
1. Voluntarily at
the police station, all three men each give a statement regarding the events
of the evening (and early morning) prior to Natalee Holloway missing her
plane. Deepak Kalpoe and Joran Van der Sloot repeat the same statement
made earlier. Satish Kalpoe (who had not been present at the early
morning confrontation with police present), makes the same statement
as the other two.
2. Days later, after
being arrested for suspicion of a possible crime in the disappearance of
Natalee Holloway, and in jail, Satish Kalpoe and Deepak Kalpoe, separated
from one another and from Joran Van der Sloot, each change their
statement (this is to be their only revision), as follows:
a. Both Satish
Kalpoe and Deepak Kalpoe say they dropped Joran Van der Sloot with
Natalee Holloway at a local beach (Mariott beach, also known as Palm Beach)
at about 1:40 or 1:45 am and arrived at their home shortly thereafter.
b. Satish's
statement is that he went to sleep after arriving home.
c. Deepak Kalpoe's
statement says:
1. Arrived home around
1:50 am (five to ten minute drive from Mariottt beach area).
2. Shortly after
2:00 am, after arriving home, he got on his computer . He offers logon
records on the internet to verify this action and time. (until almost 3:00
am).
3. 2:40 am:
He says that Joran telephoned (cellphone) Deepak and asked for a
ride. (cellphone triangulation shows he is at the beach near the Mariott).
4. 3:00-3:01 am:
Joran called Deepak again, says he is walking home, that he left Natalee
on beach. (cellphone grid triangulation shows Joran "in the neighbohood"
between the Mariott beach and his home).
4a. An alternate
version is that Joran was picked up by Satish and then driven home.
5. 3:00 am:
Deepak says that he is conversing in a computer chat room with a
friend in the US.
6. Sometime after
3:00 am: Phone records show another call after 3:00 o'clock (3:15?).
Deepak states this call was Joran saying he has arrived home.(cellphone
grid triangulation shows Joran is at his home.)
|
| Here is a more complete
timeline which takes into account many possible conflicts:
Timeline
accounting for conflicts
|
Source: Interview
with Satish Kalpoe's attorney, (Click to read) David Kock, states
that computer and phone records confirm Deepak's statement and Joran's
locations and times and that Satish went home and stayed there..
Quote from David Kock:
"There are Internet records that show the time that Deepak got home. Of
course, we do not have any for Satish because he went home, as you know,
and went to his bedroom, went to sleep in his bedroom. There's no computer.
He wasn't either on the phone anymore. But his brother, Deepak, was. And
for that, we already have the records. And that is also what we indicated
during the hearing of the so-called gardener, when he stated that at a
certain time, he saw the three there, whereas we had concrete proof that
that was just not possible...
{snip}
Other than what my client
stated that he heard or was told by Joran, is that he went home walking.
But you know, we don't have any way to verify it." (Italics added
by Scrux) |
|
3. Joran Van der Sloot
made a second revision to his statement to agree with Satish Kalpoe's and
Deepak Kalpoe's second statement (that Joran and Natalee were dropped on
the beach), except in Joran Van der Sloot's second version, Joran
further states that he left Natalee on the beach and he stated that Deepak
Kalpoe picked him up in his car at the beach after his phone call and took
him to the Van der Sloot home.
4. Throughout his
custody, Joran Van der Sloot has never changed the part of his statement,
which agrees with the final version of Satish Kalpoe.
5. After Joran
Van der Sloot is shown the computer records (and Deepak's statement)
Joran then makes a third revision to his statement to agree with Deepak
Kalpoe's statement, that after he telephoned Deepak Kalpoe, Deepak
did not pick him up, but instead he walked home from the beach (about
a 40 minute walk). Evidently, Joran made a verbal assertion prior to changing
his statement in which he surmised that perhaps Deepak came back after
dropping him at home and raped and murdered Natalee. That Joran made
this speculation is confirmed at least by David Kock (Satish attorney).
However, it evidently was not signed by Joran. This is discussed
further in an "Unsubstantiated Information"
page. Then after Joran is shown the computer records and Deepak's
statement he retracts that speculation as well as changing his own statement.
6. No further
changes in their statements past the second revision have ever been made
by Satish Kalpoe or Deepak Kalpoe.
| Note that Joran has made
3 (or 4) statements (versions):
Version 1. Dropped
Natalee at Holiday Inn
Version 2. Natalee
and Joran were left at Mariott beach. Joran left Natalee on beach,
called Deepak for ride. Deepak picked him up and took him home.
Text messages Deepak saying "call me."
Version 3.
Same as version 2, except Joran says he called Deepak and told him
he is walking home. Text messages Deepak later to say he has arrived
home.
Version 4. Same as
version 3, except Joran claims that Satish picked him up and drove him
home
| About version 4:
From this CNN report June 29, 2005 - 11:30 ET
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/29/lt.02.html
Van der Sloot's attorney, Antonio Carlo, declined to talk to us for
this report, but Kock has seen van der Sloot's statements to investigators
and says he's changed his story several times since his arrest, claiming
first Deepak Kalpoe picked him up from the beach after he left Natalee,
then saying it was Satish Kalpoe. In another version of the story,
Joran van der Sloot said he walked home.
David Kock: There have been other points, but those important
issues, you see that those are four different stories.
Then in an Dutch television Nova interview on Feb 18,
2006, Reporter Twan Huys interviewed Joran. Joran
Nova interview
http://scrux.com/transcripts/novajoranfeb18.htm
Joran van der Sloot: ... and she went with us and she wanted
to be left on the beach. She wanted me to stay with her, but I had to go
to school the next day and I told her I had to go and eventually I called
one of my friends and he picked me up and I went home.
Reporter Twan Huys:: Who picked you up ?
Joran van der Sloot: Deepak's brother Satish. |
|
7. Subsequently,
over several weeks, Joran Van der Sloot modifies his third or fourth
statement (versions 3 and 4) several times to add events which he
says occurred after Joran Van der Sloot and Natalee Holloway were dropped
off at the beach.
8. These revisions
occur upon Joran Van der Sloot's reading of typed copies of his statement
and then editing his previously signed statements. In the following
fashion Joran Van der Sloot has edited his version 3 or 4
statement many times, ostensibly to correct and expand on certain facts:
a. As Joran Van der
Sloot recalls minor details which he had forgotten to include earlier.
b. As Joran Van der
Sloot's memory is refreshed when investigators compare known facts,
such as geographical fixtures at the beach location, to his earlier recollection.
c. Maybe on
advice of his attorney, Joran Van der Sloot recounts information he was
reluctant to tell, like perhaps details of consensual sex or mutual drug
use. |
9. None of Joran Van
der Sloot's statements admit to his causing any harm to Natalee Holloway
or knowing about her ultimate fate or destination. He maintains his innocence,
through all the statements, of any wrong doing concerning Natalee Holloway
or any knowledge of any details about her disappearance, with one possible
exception. This exception is discussed on the "Unsubstantiated
Information" page where an unverified statement was reported to have
been made by Joran implicating Deepak. Interestingly that unverified statement
would be consistent with Joran's version 2, above.
10. Possible reasonable
explanations for various versions:
Judges can make conjectures
(often these arguments are advanced by the defense attorney) in order to
decide if certain behavior, such as making a false statement or revising
a statement, is reasonably not conclusive to be an indication of guilt.
These are possible reasonable explanations a judge might consider:
a. Joran Van der
Sloot might have been at first embarrassed to admit that he did as cavalier
(uncouth or unmannerly) a thing as to leave an unescorted woman alone at
the beach. This could account for the first version (version 1 above).
b. Satish Kalpoe
and Deepak Kalpoe might have been merely backing up the statement of their
friend (Joran Van der Sloot) thinking it was harmless to do so, and also
wanting to save Joran Van der Sloot from the embarrassment of telling about
leaving a young woman alone in the middle of the night. This might
account for the Kalpoes first version.
c. Why Joran
would tell the second version (version 2 above)? If the third version
(version 3 above) is the truth, then version 2 would
have been an unnecesary complication to the story (and while version 1
lie has a forgivable explanation, if version 2 is a lie, there is no reasonable
explanation). But, what is significant is that he changed to version
3 (or 4), only when shown the Kalpoe computer records and after
being confronted in a face to face encounter with Deepak during interrogation.
A perhaps more logical explanation might be that Joran's version 2
is the correct one (truthful) and that the computer records actually don't
exonerate both of the Kalpoes, since Satish could have been the one on
Deepak's computer while Deepak was picking up Joran and taking him home.
If that were true then Deepak would be a more likely suspect, with Satish
an accessory in covering up Deepak's involvement.
d. Possible reasonable
explanations why Joran Van der Sloot did multiple edits of his statement:
c1 - Better recollection
of the sequence of events at the beach area,
c2 - Revelation of
acts between Joran Van der Sloot and Natalee Holloway, which Joran Van
der Sloot, at first, wanted to remain discreet.
c3 - Correction of
details of geographical structures present at the scene,
c4 - A simple jogged
memory correction of who Joran Van der Sloot talked to when called concerning
picking him up at the beach.
c5 - Correction of
his recollection of the timing of certain contacts with the other two men
after evidence was shown Joran Van der Sloot showing details of various
phone or text message records. |
It should be noted that
making revisions to any sworn statement, offered in response to police
questioning, does not provide evidentiary indication that the previous
version of the statement is now perjurious. Making revisions to statements
to improve their accuracy is always suggested and encouraged by investigator
s (if anything additional is remembered, etc) and looked upon favorably
by the court. Previous statements corrected in sworn subsequent versions
are no longer admissible as evidence and cannot be used against a defendant
in a court of law. The lastest sworn statement is considered the
representation of record. A suspect (or defendant) is not required
to make any statement and so, all such are voluntary. |
11. Concerns raised by Version 4
| A. If Joran and Satish are now mobile in an automobile, after
leaving Natalee on the beach, the phone triangulation reports are not as
exonerating, They could have merely driven by Joran's house and made the
call to Deepak from the street, saying he was home.
B. With Joran and Satish mobile, a possible speculative scenario
that they took Natalee by Joran's apartment to see if she might recover
there (perhaps from alcohol poisoning, or drug overdose, or injury) has
more credibilty. Joran's alibi of being on the computer at 3:30 or so,
no longer has much significance, because they could have left anytime after
that. Access to the car changes the entire perspective on events.
C. Since Version 4 would place Joran and Satish with a
car, they would have been able to make trips all over the island, until
Joran got on the bus to school. They could have enlisted help (from drug
dealers or others) to dispose of a body. Many scenarios would be possible
with a car.
D. A statement by Nadira Rameriz (Kalpoe brothers' mother)
was carefully worded that she didn't see either of them were home (only
saw a closed door, which could have been closed by Deepak). While that
doesn't refute anyone's story (as was erroneously concluded on a "Dr. Phil"
television show), it doesn't provide Satish with an alibi that he wasn't
out all night. In fact, Satish has never had any alibi, since he wasn't
the one on the computer nor had a cellphone.
E. With Version 4, the gardner's statement (see
unsubstantiated
informaion) begins to be more believable, Deepak was not seen. (Joran
driving the car makes more sense if Deepak was not there). He might have
just been wrong on the time (they used the cellphone triangulation and
computer times to refute his testimony). Joran and Satish could have been
at his apartment and left to then be seen by the gardener.
Certainly, the Version 4 information wouldn't be necessarily
incriminating, in and of itself. Joran could have still left Natalee
on the beach. However, the layering of the lies, made even more convoluted
with Satish's attorney strangely hiding this Version 4 in his August
interview, tend to make the circumstances more prone to suspicion. |
Concerning evidence that
a crime was committed:
1. Evidence concerning
the status of Natalee Holloway:
a. Natalee
Holloway was last seen with the three men. (statements of bar patrons).
b. Natalee
Holloway was left on the beach (statements of the three men).
c. See the
"Unsubstantiated Information" page concerning
Joran's (not verified) speculation about Deepak Kalpoe, which is interestingly,
also consistent with Joran's version 2, above.
d. Natalee
Holloway missed her flight home to Alabama.
e. There
have been no communications from Natalee Holloway.
f. Extensive
search efforts cannot find Natalee Holloway or her body on the land or
in waters surrounding Aruba.
g. Natalee
Holloway is still missing. |
2. Forensic evidence
of a crime against Natalee Holloway:
a. No forensic
evidence was presented to the court, which would indicate any harm came
to Natalee Holloway.
b. No forensic
evidence even supports that Natalee Holloway was ever in the company
any of the three men
c. Only statements
of the three men and fellow bar attendees are evidence of her being in
the company of the three men. |
3. Speculative
scenarios
Any scenarios such as:
Natalee Holloway was a runaway, a kidnap victim or a murder victim are
based only on speculation, or facts not in evidence, and cannot be considered
in these proceedings.
4. Sam Redman's
Unsubstantiated information
Click to
read
In order to present the
whole picture we also present "Unsubstantiated
Information." This is for rumors, possible witnesses such as the "gardener,"
supposed confessions or speculations or other information not yet in evidence,
but theorized by some as having a possiblity of becoming evidence.
5. Sam Redman's
Reasons for Suspicion
Click to read
We also provide an essay
discussing valid
Reasons for Suspicion, which
expresses logical arguments that Joran Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe Brothers
should be suspected of wrong doing. It is a "must read" along with
the other information.
6. Joran Interview
Joran Van der Sloot was
interviewed in Holland by "A Current Affair" television show. Here
is a true unedited, uncensored interview transcript: Joran
interview (uncensored)
Here is the edited and censored
broadcast interview: Censored edited interview
7. Paul van der
Sloot Interview
A very candid interview
with Paul van der Sloot, by the Dutch television show NOVA .
He talks about that first night and about the reasons he was arrested:
Paul
van der Sloot interview
8. Sam Redman's essay,
The CrackHouse Theory
Sam Redman has prepared
a fanciful essay on The Crackhouse Theory.
It is a fictional tale, but, one which might explain the mystery to some.
This is an example of wild speculation.
9. Mountain Brook
student quotes
All of the Mountain Brook
student quotes (from lots of interview sources) : Student
quotes
How would the judges
decide?
Suppose this was what was
the total of what was allowable to be presented to all judges presiding
on a three judge panel by the prosecution. How would any one of those
judges upon hearing this decide? Charged with the rules
of law and evidence,
How would you decide? |
