Natalee Case Discussion #695 11/27/2007

[JusticeforNatalee]

Part of taking a  "fresh look" at the case would be to use common sense and logic.

[Kimmy53]

I think it's good that some ale are still there. Do you really think they can influence 45 new investigators? If anything these guys will be on very thin ice and probably over-compensate.

It was all about leadership. There were different factions in the beginning and the fact is Paulus has no power, no leverage, he is isolated.

Once this becomes clear to the 3 suspects, it's over. Daddy cannot help them anymore.

I agree Frank.  This investigation has a new "feel" about it.  Soon the 3 amigos will realize this, and start talking...

I am also hoping that the "old" investigators might feel comfortable enough to tell what went on in the previous investigation... wouldn't that be rich?

[Port Valerie]

I think it's good that some ale are still there. Do you really think they can influence 45 new investigators? If anything these guys will be on very thin ice and probably over-compensate.

It was all about leadership. There were different factions in the beginning and the fact is Paulus has no power, no leverage, he is isolated.

Once this becomes clear to the 3 suspects, it's over. Daddy cannot help them anymore.

I don't think there are 45 new investigators. Rather, I think Mos was saying that they have 45 people on the entire team, including the lawyers and even the people who coordinate the activities. That would mean secretaries. He's was taking care to give credit to all the people working on this, as any good manager would.

[MumInOhio]

Kock told Greta the mantra the attorneys are advising their clients. "Don't answer the same questions you've been asked before." under the guise of "why should I? this is old rehashing."

<snip>

This seems a good time to bring up something that's been rattling in my head for months.

Of the statements we have here - and I *know* we don't have all of them - Satish only signed ONE. He signed his 5/31 PV (Holiday Inn story). He refused to sign the others. I don't *think* unsigned statements are usable.

Satish's statements have always bothered me. In the ones around 6/9 to 6/13 he refused to answer a lot of questions, but did not realise they were not signed. One he answers about Steve Croes and then he refused to answer anything else! One he says nothing!

[crazybabyborg]

I think that Hans has put ALE in a really precarious position. By managing to get the 3 arrested and held, everyone is starkly aware that the world's attention is right back in their lap. Those who would protect the island in an ill concieved intention to just "make this case go away and protect tourism and the economy of the the island" are between a rock and a hard place. The arrests are a fact, already done, so what are the choices?

1. Let them go for insufficient evidence and close the case.
        THAT starts the outrage all over again, and criticism only heightens in the face of    Han's public incriminating statements. This backlash would make the first storm look like a Spring shower.

2. Progress to trial and find them not guilty
    See no.1

3. Progress to trial and find them guilty
       World view has no choice but to remove the case from it's radar. It's over. There will be criticism in the immediate aftermath, but it will be mixed with praise for bringinf it resolution. Saying that in Aruba, there is no police authority or accountability for crime would require the footnote that Natalee's case WAS solved.

I'm not sure that even ALE will get in the way this time. It's not that cut and dry, really, because ALE may very well have an interest in not divulging what was done to sweep the crime under the rug initially. But, I don't think I'm the only one looking ahead to the impact of what happens to the island as a result of these arrests.

[Canary]

I noticed in the 6/13 statement Satish does not mention the cleaning of the car for sand allegedly left by Joran.  He only mentions the ant car wash.

To answer your question when it was the last time Deepak´s car was cleaned: the last time Deepak and I cleaned the car it was Sunday May 29, 2005, during the evening.

[truthseeker2]

Kock told Greta the mantra the attorneys are advising their clients. "Don't answer the same questions you've been asked before." under the guise of "why should I? this is old rehashing."

<snip>

This seems a good time to bring up something that's been rattling in my head for months.

Of the statements we have here - and I *know* we don't have all of them - Satish only signed ONE. He signed his 5/31 PV (Holiday Inn story). He refused to sign the others. I don't *think* unsigned statements are usable.

Seems like I remember that too.  Satish didn't sign all of his statements.  If I heard right during the interviews last night, it sounded like most, if not all, of the interviews were videotaped.  If so, you would think those tapes and anything the suspects said on them could be used in the investigation.  Maybe not at the trial, but could be used to provide direction for the investigators.  (Just thinking out loud)

[Observer]

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have to pick them up to make that decision?

MOS: That's a good question. Yes, we thought we did because there was new evidence gained after the moment that they were released, which was two years ago. And it's quite a lot of evidence, at least a lot of material, and there's a lot of it is evidence, and the evidence is just material, but they have to be confronted with that because they were never confronted with those findings.

We progress in this investigation quite a lot, and they didn't -- don't even know what we got in the meantime. So we had to confront them with it. They are suspects, each of them, and they are witnesses against the other, possible. So we have to question them.

And what we think is very important, at least the Dutch suspect, instead of the two Surinams, and his father, who was one way or another involved in this case, has said in interviews that they are willing to talk. They are willing to disclose what happened in the past at a time set by them. And we think it is very important that this is the time to disclose this information to the public and to us because their point of view is, their son or this suspect, this Dutch suspect, didn't do anything, but he has information and he doesn't give it. We think that's unthinkable.

If we have this information we have right now, then he should disclose this information to us. The same counts for the other two suspects, who also have said, at least one of them, that he will disclose it in due time, that he is not involved. Well, let him disclose it because we are only seeking the truth, what happened. That's what we are aiming for. And if this information given by them shows that they are not involved, then they will not be prosecuted. But we don't think that that's the case.

[crazybabyborg]

Someone posted earlier that the sentence for Voluntary manslaughter is 15 years. Does that remind anyone of the Van Transcript?

Deepak said if they find out what happened Joran would get 15 years.

I think Paulus had had a "sentencing 1-0-1" around the pool with the boys and had defined the charge if the truth came out. They knew what the charge and sentence would be because Paulus, KNOWING what happened, defined it for them.

[MumInOhio]

Kock told Greta the mantra the attorneys are advising their clients. "Don't answer the same questions you've been asked before." under the guise of "why should I? this is old rehashing."

<snip>

This seems a good time to bring up something that's been rattling in my head for months.

Of the statements we have here - and I *know* we don't have all of them - Satish only signed ONE. He signed his 5/31 PV (Holiday Inn story). He refused to sign the others. I don't *think* unsigned statements are usable.

Seems like I remember that too.  Satish didn't sign all of his statements.  If I heard right during the interviews last night, it sounded like most, if not all, of the interviews were videotaped.  If so, you would think those tapes and anything the suspects said on them could be used in the investigation.  Maybe not at the trial, but could be used to provide direction for the investigators.  (Just thinking out loud)

CBB...I had read a while ago that all interviews were taped and summarized. Therefore the new team should have the tapes that go with the summaries. If it's a law thing they can't just disappear, can they?

[klaasend]

From Greta's blog:

November 27th, 2007 12:29 PM Eastern
Just Talked to Potentially Crucial Witness
by Greta Van Susteren

Just spoke to what I characterize as a ‘reluctant witness’ - the witness confirmed to us seeing someone at Kalpoe house on morning (middle of the night) of Natalee’s disappearance washing Deepak’s car…


http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/27/just-talked-to-potentially-crucial-witness/

[sandy leiva]

I miss Sleuth.

Rob - I do too.  Last post she made she sounded very busy.  Hopefully she'll post again when she can.

hi klass, just want to know what happened to my avitar it dissapeared how can i get it back / please advise. it was there until you tried to put it on the christmas tree. sl

[klaasend]

Sandy - looks like you added it directly from ImageIglu and they may be having a problem right now.  I'll see if I can add it back for you.

[Katysmom]

Does anyone know for sure yet if Beth is on the island or not?   I don't think she would rush to Aruba just because there has been re-arrests; what good would that do her?  IF she does go to Aruba I think it would be because Dave is almost certain they will find Natalee and Beth would want to be there to bring her daughter home.  What say you?

[truthseeker2]

Does anyone know for sure yet if Beth is on the island or not?   I don't think she would rush to Aruba just because there has been re-arrests; what good would that do her?  IF she does go to Aruba I think it would be because Dave is almost certain they will find Natalee and Beth would want to be there to bring her daughter home.  What say you?

Well, I don't know how I would feel if I were Beth right now.  But as an outsider I don't see a reason for her to go there right now.  JQK is in contact with the prosecutor and it just seems like she would be subjecting herself to all the same nonsense that she went through before.  Why do that if you have someone with the legal experience of JQK doing your talking for you.

Of course, it isn't my child that has been made to disappear, so I probabaly don't know what I'm talking about.

[Canary]

interesting I was just checking the Satish transcripts about his testimony re washing the car and then here's this:

 Gretawire...

November 27th, 2007 12:29 PM Eastern
Just Talked to Potentially Crucial Witness
by Greta Van Susteren
Just spoke to what I characterize as a ‘reluctant witness’ - the witness confirmed to us seeing someone at Kalpoe house on morning (middle of the night) of Natalee’s disappearance washing Deepak’s car…       

[truthseeker2]

interesting I was just checking the Satish transcripts about his testimony re washing the car and then here's this:

 Gretawire...

November 27th, 2007 12:29 PM Eastern
Just Talked to Potentially Crucial Witness
by Greta Van Susteren
Just spoke to what I characterize as a ‘reluctant witness’ - the witness confirmed to us seeing someone at Kalpoe house on morning (middle of the night) of Natalee’s disappearance washing Deepak’s car…       

LOL.  You could be Greta!!!

[crazybabyborg]

Kock told Greta the mantra the attorneys are advising their clients. "Don't answer the same questions you've been asked before." under the guise of "why should I? this is old rehashing."

<snip>

This seems a good time to bring up something that's been rattling in my head for months.

Of the statements we have here - and I *know* we don't have all of them - Satish only signed ONE. He signed his 5/31 PV (Holiday Inn story). He refused to sign the others. I don't *think* unsigned statements are usable.

Seems like I remember that too.  Satish didn't sign all of his statements.  If I heard right during the interviews last night, it sounded like most, if not all, of the interviews were videotaped.  If so, you would think those tapes and anything the suspects said on them could be used in the investigation.  Maybe not at the trial, but could be used to provide direction for the investigators.  (Just thinking out loud)

CBB...I had read a while ago that all interviews were taped and summarized. Therefore the new team should have the tapes that go with the summaries. If it's a law thing they can't just disappear, can they?

I think you're right, Mum! I think Hans is WELL aware that the videos depict at the VERY least a need for follow-up questions that were never asked. I get the impression that Hans is trying to not openly criticize ALE, but to do it right this time.

[MumInOhio]

Someone posted earlier that the sentence for Voluntary manslaughter is 15 years. Does that remind anyone of the Van Transcript?

Deepak said if they find out what happened Joran would get 15 years.

I think Paulus had had a "sentencing 1-0-1" around the pool with the boys and had defined the charge if the truth came out. They knew what the charge and sentence would be because Paulus, KNOWING what happened, defined it for them.

I found that in the Nancy Grace transcript from last night. It was part of the videoclip and from an 'unidentified female'. I did not see it and thought that Ospainter was going to watch it, so maybe we'll get some comments from the evening Monkeys. Did anyone else see it? Would be interested to know who they interviewed. TIA

[2NJSons_Mom]

From Greta's blog:

November 27th, 2007 12:29 PM Eastern
Just Talked to Potentially Crucial Witness
by Greta Van Susteren

Just spoke to what I characterize as a ‘reluctant witness’ - the witness confirmed to us seeing someone at Kalpoe house on morning (middle of the night) of Natalee’s disappearance washing Deepak’s car…


http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/27/just-talked-to-potentially-crucial-witness/

Arubagirl posted about a person who saw this, iirc.