Pauw and Witteman
January 11, 2008 (translated from Dutch)
Pauw: It is Friday, January 11, the day on which Joran van der Sloot, for the first time since his release, is telling his story Welcome to Pauw and Witteman.
Witteman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, Joran van der Sloot was brought back to Aruba at the end of November to be interrogated. That interrogation did not produce anything. He was let go and the case was seponed.
Pauw: Joran is here, together with his father Paul, and his mother Anita, for as they themselves say, their last TV interview about this case.
Witteman: Here as well is Peter R. de Vries, who has made a television documentary about the Natalee Holloway case and the role Joran van der Sloot played, and who has his doubts. He has called Joran a liar in that documentary, so there is something to be discussed.
Pauw: Yes, well... confess now, so we are done with this. Is it jokes you hear the most? Or what are you bothered with more, Joran?
Joran: Well, I’m not really bothered by others. But you have to keep making jokes, as you just said yourself, else you don’t get through all this.
Pauw: Do you and your parents have the feeling that the whole matter is over now, or do you still have the feeling that if you hear a siren somewhere, that could be for me?
Joran: Well, not really like that, but it’s something that you’ll never forget. It’s something… it sticks with you all the time. You best just keep going on but it’s something you won’t easily forget. But I think in the judicial sense, it is over now, yes.
Pauw: Are you addressed about this often?
Paul: No, actually not that much. I’m not addressed about this often. Every day life continues to go it’s normal way. And the people in Aruba have had it with this.
Witteman: Yes, had it with this, but do they believe you?
Paul: I think so.
Witteman: So if you walk the streets you don’t think: "Oh, they look at me, as the father of a murderer, or some other creep"?
Paul: No, I don’t have that feeling at all. No, on the contrary it's very remarkable... such a small community as Aruba is, and as it has had very much negative effects because of all this... that they kept being supportive towards us. That has truly surprised us and it has strengthened our hearts as well. (Unintelligible)
Witteman: Were you bothered by it?
Anita: Well, I wasn’t bothered by it so much. You know that there is talk, I mean in every community, there is talk about what has happened. Actually, it was more like the people, they were very supportive. Neighbors, people you didn’t know at all, that still came to you. We lived on Aruba for almost twenty years, and people know Joran from the time he was very small. They saw Paul or me pushing the pram. And a former teacher of his that came by who said: "Well this can not at all be possible. Such a sweet kid." So that you felt as if this story must have had a different cause. Something else is going on. And the support… well it sounds very strange but, it was very big. Really very big.
Witteman: Well, now the case is seponed, in the judicial sense over with, is that the reason you agreed to sit at the table with Peter R. de Vries?
Paul: Well yes we have always said that, as soon as this case us no longer in court. when the OM is no longer prosecuting it, we are willing to give another interview, on a reliable TV show. To show we have nothing to hide. And it is so, that all this publicity has had a very big impact on this case. It has even at some point taken over it. We thought that as long as this case is going on, it was not right to get in the spotlight. However at some times it was necessary, because we didn’t want to frustrate this investigation in any way.
Witteman: Yes, well Peter R. de Vries is here. He’s tried to contact you before, on Aruba as well. We’ll show a little clip of how that went.
(Video shown from Nov 26, 2006 DeVries program, of DeVries confronting Joran in the Netherlands, with Joran's fabricated photo of him with Natalee)
Pauw: Well there were, before we started this show, some jokes made at this table like: "Well Peter, where’s your hidden camera". Well that hidden camera is not here right now. Peter, you have tried to get in contact with the Van der Sloot family a couple of times for interviews. So you didn’t just walk behind them with your hidden camera. Do you understand something of the answer of Paul van der Sloot?
Peter de Vries: No, to be honest, I don’t understand very much of that. I think it is rather amazing, I hear him say here, he has nothing to hide, and he didn’t want to further frustrate the investigation. But than I conclude that they also did nothing to help the investigation. Because Joran van der Sloot has... when he was at Aruba in the last weeks, and could explain all his conduct, maybe could end the mysteries, maybe could shed some light on that... he has for weeks kept his mouth completely shut. Has not spoken a word, not answered one question! That I cannot reconcile with what Paul says , the beautiful comment "We have nothing to hide". Then I think, if you are innocent, and you did nothing wrong, why don’t you just tell your story, why don’t you answer questions from the police? The fact that you keep your jaws shut in those circumstances, I find that very strange.
Pauw: Let’s agree that somewhat later in this show, on this question... this is one of your questions, but you have more of them... get answers from Joran or his father or mother. But first we…
Peter: Yes, just give him some time to think.
Pauw: Yes. So you have time to find the ‘right’ answer. But first, before we talk about this whole matter, let’s give the people at home a small summary of what has all happened, as much as is known.
(Video shown summarizing the case)
Witteman: Were you surprised that you were re-arrested?
Joran: Yes, off course. I hadn’t expected that at all. I thought they were kidding me, when the police arrived at the door… telling me "You’re under arrest again. Because yes, I knew they could have nothing on me. So why would they again….
Witteman: Well, it was said that there were new facts, so there were new grounds to arrest you again, and take you to Aruba to interrogate you.
Joran: Yes, but I knew that would be impossible. That, that…
Witteman: But what than did you think… if it was impossible, what would be the reason they arrested you again?
Joran: Well I don’t know. Maybe I thought somebody has given a false statement against me, or something bad was said about me. I don’t know, something like that, that’s what I thought. In that direction. maybe something like that.
Witteman: And what did it turn out to be? Because, you got there, you were interrogated…
Joran: Well, there turned out to be absolutely nothing. No new evidence at all. Just old statements that they looked at in a different way.
Witteman: How did the interrogation go?
Joran: Well, just as Mr. De Vries said, I just kept silent. I didn’t say anything.
Witteman: Why not?
Joran: I don’t have any trust anymore in the OM at Aruba. I think that they, they are not trying to find the truth, or trying to find out what happened in this case. They are just literally doing…. they just want somebody to hang for this, they just want somebody to hang for this. They just want for their own egos, that they themselves come out of this good.
Witteman: Even if it is an innocent person as well.
Joran: Yes, even if it is an innocent person as well. I’m convinced of that.
Peter: Well I think it’s a bit awkward that you say you do not trust the Aruban OM, when it was you who has lied all the time.
Joran: Yes, I lied and I admit that, but there were reasons for that, and you don’t know them and….
Peter: Yes, I would like to know those reasons. To lie about what you have done, where you supposedly have nothing to hide? Why do you have to lie then, tell me that.
Joran: Well I did that extensively in my book already. And you have read that so you already know the reasons.
Peter: But you are here now to tell your story, right?
Witteman: Let’s agree that in the second part of the show, we will give you the opportunity to do that, but first let’s tell the story of the Van der Sloot-family, according to the rules we’ve agreed on in advance with Joran. Namely, that we first look at what actually happened. Because you say, I kept my mouth shut, I didn’t tell them anything more, and they didn’t come up with anything new. Were those interrogations tougth despite that?
Joran: Well in fact compared to the first ones, they were not. They turned out less tough than I’d expected. There was a Dutch detective team that told their story, and in fact what they did was just speculating. They already talked in terms of a girl that was dead, you name it, where in fact it’s just a missing girl.
Pauw: That is all in the file isn't it? Because in the file of the judge-commissioner, it says that it has to be put first, that there are strong indications against the suspects that Natalee is dead.
Joran: I would like to know that now as well.
Pauw: Because you do not know of any indication that Natalee is dead?
Joran: (Shakes his head.)
Pauw: Deepak Kalpoe had stated that "her death was not good"?
Witteman: One of your friends there…
Joran: Yes, that… I don’t know either how that went exactly. That’s something you should ask them.
Pauw: Didn’t you ask that to them ever? Like: "What have you said now?"
Joran: No (Unintelligible)
Pauw: But what did you say than?
Joran: No, I never asked him that. I... I mean we were so often interrogated by the police, and we in the beginning made so many statements. And I have already said all there is to tell. So I think also, yes, why do I have to make the same statements to the police twenty times? I think that the only thing they try is to find a little difference in them.
Pauw: What we do now, Joran, is just cite the report of the judge commissioner, who has used that in Aruba. In this report Deepak Kalpoe stated that her death was not good, has Satish Kalpoe... which is the other friend or brother, what is it exactly?
Joran: His brother.
Pauw: Kalpoe has said he thinks that the suspect, you, has beaten her to death. You yourself supposedly have stated about the burying of Natalee Holloway? Those are some hard facts, due to which one would think that indeed something is going on here?
Joran: Yes, I, I, … it’s three years ago now, and in the beginning we were really treated tough by the police and almost made to say things that we wouldn’t say ourselves. And yes, I have the feeling they made me want to say things that weren’t true.
Pauw: Did you never say, or have you never spoken, about burying Natalee Holloway?
Joran: No, I have never discussed that with the police.
Anita: Can I go into that for a moment?
Witteman: Of course.
Anita: When Joran was arrested for the first time, I was the only one who was allowed to see him. Because he was a minor and they wanted to keep out Paul because of his function. I had spoken to Joran some times but only briefly, some 15 to twenty minutes. And I am his mother. I love him very dearly. And I’m really convinced he wouldn’t do anything to that girl. These first emotions, these are very important to me, to see them in him as well. For a moment I doubted him. I’ve thought, by jingo, could an accident have happened? Because I did indeed doubt him for a while. He doesn’t want to tell. He is about to have his final exams. He knows he has final-exams-celebrations. He has a girlfriend, so he’s cheated on her. He knows his father will be very angry with him. Etc, etc. So I very directly spoke with him in one of the confrontations, when I came over there. And I was taken by an Aruban detective. And Joran was very upset, before that he was beset for hours and hours. Words were put in his mouth, which he never said. That were put to paper but that he never signed. And they showed that to me: "This is what he said."
Pauw: Well, Mrs. van der Sloot, these are maybe not the most subtle parts of this conversation, but Joran, you were visiting a psychiatrist because you were lying so much.
Joran: No, that was not the reason why I visited the psychiatrist. I’ve been to a children's psychiatrist two times, but that was because we had some things going on within our family.
Anita: I can explain that as well. So you can hear it from my own mouth. Paul was in Holland for the Judges-training, and I had to deal with three children in my own. And Joran, as many seventeen year olds… I myself work with teens, and he was not the easiest one. Besides that, we had problems with… I had some problems with him. That he came home way too late. I’m rather strict, maybe sometimes I was even a little too strict. And at a certain point, after talking about it with a friend of mine, maybe it’s good we consulted a youth-psychiatrist. Because I just wanted him to have a goal in life, that he thinks well about what he wants with his life, and all this ‘going out’. I just feel bad about that. And at that time he started playing poker in the casino, and I don’t want my son being in the casino! So I contacted a youth-psychiatrist. He wasn’t 18 yet, he still was 17. He went there twice, that’s correct, and we had one conclusive-conversation after that. And that was it. So it was really not just about lying.
Peter: What I now think is striking, is that they have no confidence whatsoever in the judicial authorities. While of course, it was not that long ago that Mr. van der Sloot himself did his utmost to be able to work there.
Pauw: As a judge you mean.
Peter: As a judge. I think it’s striking that suddenly there is so little confidence in that organization.
Paul: Well look, Mr. De Vries can’t hear that good. If he would have listened carefully he would have heard that Joran said that he didn’t have any confidence in the OM! That’s what Joran has said. Joran didn’t talk about the judicial authorities. What you see now, what has happened is that luckily we have judicial authorities. And we sit here again. So in the end it’s because of the judicial authorities that all has ended well.
Witteman: The judge has said: the case must be seponed, there is too little evidence, Joran is free. Well, let’s for a minute get back to that prosecution before Joran was released, because Joran just said they wanted to frame me; that’s what it turned out to be.
Joran: Well it was more like, in the beginning, the first time I was arrested, they were rather tough with us. They stuck pictures of the girl to the wall. And they told me as well... those two brothers are saying... they played us off against each other. That resulted in us saying things about each other that were not at all true.
Pauw: But you had all rehearsed the exact same story?
Joran: Yes, we had agreed on... we had spoken about that in advance.
Pauw: That you had taken her to a hotel. And that she was so unsteady she had to hold on to a pillar. And I think that all three of you, up to the pillar, told the same story?
Joran: Yes, but everyone had added their own things to it.
Pauw: But why did you do that? Why did you feel, let's all make up a story, namely this one? Why this particular story?
Joran: Yes, yes. Why this story? I just was shocked at that moment. Those parents were suddenly in front of our house. And yes, I also didn't know what I had to do.
Pauw: But then you say, boys, lets agree to one thing, let's all tell the same story, and we are going to make up that story now.
Peter: You just can tell the truth can you, when nothing happened? There’s no reason to lie is there?
Joran: Yes, I don’t think the truth sounds that good, if you have to say you left a girl at the beach.
Peter: So you feel a lie sounds better than the truth?
Joran: Well, I didn’t know how serious this all was. I didn’t know there was a real problem.
Peter: That’s exacly why it is so strange that you lie. When you don’t know that something serious is going on, that something is wrong, then there is especially no reason to lie. That’s exactly the strange thing about you lying.
Pauw: Peter… Peter, you're the father of a teenager. Well, maybe that’s a bit insipid. Father of a young daughter. You can imagine, you do something… leaving a girl at the beach… let’s just say I decently brought her back. Such a little lie, you can imagine, can't you?
Peter: No, I can’t imagine that, Jeroen. You must try to see the psychology behind that, I think. When he doesn’t know what has happened to the girl, and maybe after she has slept away her drunkenness she simply shows up again, then he is really caught lying, as it would become clear that he had not dropped her off at all. And she by herself has come back, or in whatever way made it back. The fact that he nevertheless tells this lie, "I dropped her off", you can interpret as, he knew he could not be proven a liar, that he was safe telling this story, because he knew Natalee would not turn up again.
Witteman: Don’t you think you look at this in a much too rational way? We're talking about a 17 year-old boy who is confronted by the parents of girl that possibly has disappeared, maybe think that she is murdered and are suspecting him. Then in a panic you do not immediately say "Yes, I left her behind?" And maybe terrible things have happened.
Peter: Well I think it’s always the best option to tell the truth, especially when you know for yourself that…
Witteman: But as a crime reporter, you must know there are many exeptions to this rule?
Peter: Yes, and they usually have a reason. But in a situation where nothing has happened, there was no wrongdoing, the girl herself wanted to stay there, or get home by herself… than that’s what you say don’t you? The fact that you don’t do that, and the three of you in a very calculated way rehearse a lie… that I find suspicious.
Joran: I myself of course also think it is very bad that I lied. That is the only thing... that is the thing I regret most. If I had came forward with the truth at the beginning, I think everything would have gone very differently. And I think that as well is one of the reasons Mr. De Vries thinks the way he thinks, but when you just look at the facts in this case... the time period that I have been with this girl, after that have been home at my computer, and the next day at school and doing all sort of things… what then do you try to say I have done?
Peter: Since you seem to want to talk facts, tell me how you got home that night.
Joran: I was taken home, D... D... by Satish, the brother of Deepak.
Peter: Yes. and he denies that. He says, I didn’t take him to his home at all. And first you stated that you were brought home by Deepak. Not by Satish. Those are also things that are not correct.
Joran: Mr. De Vries. I don’t know if you ever…
Peter: Why should they lie?
Witteman: Give him a chance to answer this….
Joran: If you ever were interrogated by the police, in a murder case…
Peter: Very often.
Joran: Also in a murder case.
Peter: No, not where I was a suspect.
Joran: The way I was interrogated was no pleasure.
Peter: No, when you are...
Joran: The only thing you think of is wanting to go home. So there are things you say that…. yes, if you’re being promised you can go home, or it can help to get you home, then there are things you say that (Unintelligible)
Peter: Yes, but how did you get home?
Witteman: (Unintelligible) Peter, you especially know that people confess to a murder that they didn’t commit.
Peter: And what does that have to do with this?
Witteman: Well, that apparently the truth can be hidden.
Peter: But, how did you get home?
Joran: I just told you that.
Peter: But those two brothers deny that, and from the email… from the sms and chat-contacts that were there, it shows clear as day that they didn’t bring you home.
Joran: That’s something you draw from that. But that’s not true at all. I think it indeed does show that.
Pauw: Back to your father, if you don’t mind. You were judge-in-training I believe. And now you’re lawyer.
Paul: Yes.
Pauw: And you have a son, and that son is interrogated, and this son tells a story which you later find out…. (To Joran) Did you tell him yourself? (To Paul) Or how did you find out that it was a lie?
Paul: Um...
Pauw: You know, dropped her off at the hotel and so on.
Joran: Now by the police he... he was told that.
Pauw: What did you think then?
Paul: Well, we were angry. So when we learned that Joran didn’t tell the truth, Anita and I just were very angry at Joran.
Pauw: A girl is missing and your son is a suspect and on top of that he has lied…
Paul: Yes, yes, for us that was incomprehensible. That... not just that he lied, but he kept on lying for a long time. That was, yes that was incomprehensible to us. We were very angry about that at that moment.
Pauw: Did you at that point say to him: "As long as there is no body there is no case"?
Paul: No, I’ve never said that. That’s a term that you drop here now but…
Pauw: It’s put in the book like this as well.
Paul: Yes, but that term was used by the then Public Prosecutor, after I had had an interview with Twan Huys, of which the message was, well, we’re not the victims, let’s first concentrate on this girl. let’s try to find that girl. And she then, the next day, didn’t pick up that message and she said “Yes, this father, this (Unintelligible) concerned father. But, he has instructed these guys no body, no case, and that’s the reason why they are stating this way.” That was the only thing, and that of course is the heart of the matter, that I from the start on have said, this is a missing-case! This is not a criminal case. And that in my opinion is the big mistake that the OM has made. From the start they were talking about murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, when there was no evidence for that. And later everything is getting in a certain light, and now two and a half years later that has been corrected, but that has been very unfortunate.
Peter: I don’t think were are here now to assume this girl is still alive?
Witteman: We’ll get to that later. Let’s get back a minute. You worked there as a backup judge. Imagine… this is a strictly hypothetical question… imagine Joran telling you, a confidant par excelance in this family perhaps, "Listen Dad, I did something horrible". What would you have done in that case? I would have gone with Joran to the Public Prosecutor! Did you discuss this scenario with one another?
Paul: What do you mean?
Anita: (Unintelligible) Yes.
Witteman.: You would agree with that?
Anita: Yes.
Witteman: You would have informed the police against your son?
Anita: Yes.
Joran: And I can confirm that.
Witteman: You mean they would have threatened you with that?
Joran: No, I think they would have done that, yes.
Paul: There would have been no doubts about that. By the way, I was amazed that a lot of people think you could be able to hide something like this. For me that would have been absolutely strange. There would have been absolutely no doubts about that.
Pauw: Have you have doubts? Was there a moment you thought maybe he did it? That maybe an accident had happened and …
Paul: No, actually I have never doubted it one time.
Anita: I did.
Paul: I have always seen the way Joran was with girls. He was not able to do that, I’m sure of that. He would... if anything would have happened to that girl, he would have acted accordingly.
Witteman: Yes, let’s talk a minute how Joran was with girls. He’s very frank about it in his book. For him it apparently was, or is, easy to seduce girls. So easy, that you can question if it always happened with the decency that has to go with that process, in comparison with someone who has much more difficulty interacting with girls, and is much more courteous. For example, you don’t write very respectfully about Natalee.
Joran: No, I am very respectful towards girls. I have for example never pushed a girl. Or did something wrong to a girl.
Witteman: Well there was talk of “the bitch this” and “the bitch that”. And you hardly knew this girl and still you were intimate with her. And after that leaving her there alone? These are not things that prove you have great respect for women.
Joran: No, but it simply was so, that I was in the casino and I was invited to go out by her girlfriends . And one thing led to the other, and she wanted to come with us as well. She invited me to dance with her. Not that I didn’t want it, but….
Witteman: No, it’s about this Joran. Your father says: "What we know of Joran is that he doesn’t do wrong things with girls. Contradicting that is the fact that you left her at the beach, you cheated on your own girlfriend, not just with Natalee but with another girl as well. That is not evidence of a principled respect you have for these women.
Joran: Well. I can not, I well...well maybe you’re right about that. Yes.
Witteman: But returning to the father, maybe you exaggerate the "respectful" way Joran behaves towards women?
Paul: I have always seen that Joran respectfully treated girls. And we’ve discussed that as well. So for me it’s incomprehensible that a girl that wasn’t totally well, was left behind by him.
Anita: He has two times had a longer relationship, and that girl visited our house, we knew her parents, we knew that girl. And he is still in contact with that girl and we are ... she still calls me "ma'am". He was with her for nine months, that girl was 16. That girl has very strongly defended Joran after that. After that there were some other dates. I think, and again I work with teens, 16, 17 and 18-year olds, that is very normal behaviour for a 17 year-old boy. Well, there were many telephone calls normally, like: "Is Joran at home? Can I speak to Joran?" Well, at a certain point, Joran had his own telephone, so we didn’t keep an eye on it anymore. But I have never seen, nor at our school... because he was at my school, I did see him a lot there of course... again, I’ve never seen anything of bad behaviour.
Witteman: Have you ever thought that maybe an accident had happened because…
Anita: I thought that in the begining for a while, because I thought, now Joran leaving a girl alone on the beach, that cannot be, we always say walk along with the girl if you are going out, to the door. He was not raised like that. So I was really furious at him, both of us were. So I thought, could something have happened?
Witteman: Alcohol and drugs...
Anita: But I had, well drugs... no, but alcohol... Those doubts were there for a while, and I was in Holland by the way, for the birthday of my grandmother, she turned 90 years old. I had gone to Holland for a few days, and Paul called me, like oh, something disturbing, there is a girl missing, and Joran seems to be the one who was last... seen with her, went out with her. By the way, I was just at the point of leaving Holland, so I did not go back early. So I had thought something like, jeez, oh what now, again? But we both felt like, well she will appear again, the girl has probably ran away. And when he told me about the conversation he had with the girl, I then especially had thought something like, well she will turn up. But after three days it became rather worrying.
Witteman: Okay, we now go as agreed with Peter R. de Vries, about his approach and your reaction to that. But first we’ll watch today's news.
(Newsclip)
Pauw: Okay, Peter R. de Vries, as we announced earlier you’ve made a documentary which has aired two or three times. And all three times it got much attention. A lot of people watched it, and that indicates that it is a case which in the Netherlands is very well followed by many, and that many people are interressed in. According to you, what happened?
Peter: That would be speculating. I wasn’t there.
Pauw: But you make some assumptions that….
Peter: Well, I hear the parents now make some statements like: "We don’t think Joran would do such a thing, he has respect for girls". But of course many other scenarios are possible. I don’t say he willingly and knowingly did something to Natalee because of which she died. Another scenario is possible, in which something happened against his will, as a result of which… Well, she had drank, she was a vulnerable girl, and she could have passed out because of that, whereupon he panicked and instead of calling the police, he called his father and maybe did something different. But okay, that’s speculating, but again there are more scenarios possible where it didn’t start out with any evildoing
.
Pauw: What then makes you feel that you have to keep focusing on this investigation? Because you could say as well: "Okay, this guy has now been so often freed of charges, and nothing has been proven…."
Peter: Well, he was not declared "not guilty"…
Pauw: Why can’t you say, I quit now or I will find out what happened by talking to other people
Peter: Well you invite me to come talk about it again, so in that sense you keep getting confronted with it.
Pauw: But what is it that triggers you to…
Peter: Well, what triggers me is that Joran simply, undoubtedly lied about certain things, where at the same time he has no legitimate reason for that. And he hasn’t stated on that very clearly, and the fact that he still as he was arrested the last time never spoke a word. I think that’s very awkward. And I wonder if that is something his father agrees with, as a person who himself wanted to be a judge. And that in such a crucial case where a girl has disappeared, and where the mother of that girl is still desperate about the whereabouts of her daughter. That you then still can keep your mouth shut whereas the investigation is aimed at getting clarity on that. And on certain points he has lied and those lies were never cleared up by him.
Witteman: Mr. Van der Sloot?
Paul: I agree with Joran totally. Because Joran at that moment couldn’t do anything else. And I have advised Joran to not talk because he already has said it all. Look…..
Peter: Who says it that he has told everything by now? There simply are still some questions.
Paul: You have to imagine such an interrogation. And I wondered about that.. I must say, such a detective in fact has already completed his analysis, and next he wants confirmation of that. So he starts asking questions. And when you give an answer that doesn’t fit his analysis, then there’s another question and another. And then they go back to earlier statements. And at that moment there was nothing left to gain, for nobody, when Joran had started to talk.
Pauw: But what Peter says is that your son has lied several times. And because he has lied, it’s logical that the detective keeps asking questions untill he’s heard the truth. And that’s one of the tasks the OM has to do: Find the truth. And you say, as a judge in training and later as a lawyer, keep your mouth shut.
Paul: Yes, and I have explained that. He already had told everything.
Witt.: So you believe your son 100%. He has nothing to do with the disappearence of Natalee Holloway. What does he have to lose than?
Paul: It would just create more confusion. Look, you must see that Joran has explained it himself as well.
Witteman: But he won’t say I did it when he didn’t do it.
Joran: But you as well have to see that now that they had me convined again for these 16 days I was in full isolation… I wasn’t allowed to see anyone, to do anything, read a book, have contacts with others… And that to me was very frustrating. You are powerless against this… or say leave me alone or I walk away from it…Pauw: But how than is it possible that you knew that these two brothers were released?
Joran: Well, it’s a small prison. The women's prison had their courtyard close to my cell window, and from them you hear stuff. They told me what was in the newspapers.
Peter: Okay, he says, and his father agrees, I don’t talk again with the OM because everything is already said. But that of course is the question, because there are still things open, about which there is no clearity yet. Among which is the question: "How did you get home". My experiences are that... and I have seen this very often... that when people refuse to make any further statements, most of the time that is not because they lack confidence in the OM, but because they forgot their previous lies. And in those cases it’s better to keep silent.
Joran: Well, Mr. De Vries I hope that one day it all comes out and you have to appologize for all the things you’ve said.
Anita: Well, I was interrogated by the KLPD as well, for some four hours, but the questions were not directed at finding the truth, but at "Joran must hang".
Peter: But I must say that it took quite a long time, before your son was arrested the first time. And let’s not forget that it was he who came up with very strong lies. So it’s not strange when the justice department says: "You were the last who was seen with Natalee; you tell us a story that was lies from the first to the last word."
Anita: But I’ve seen some of Joran’s statements and the slightest change in his statement... for example at a location where he pointed somewhat more to the left than he had previously done... that was considdered a new statement.
Peter: Well, that's inherent to these kinds of investigations. And let's note that you talk of somewhat more to the left or right, but in Joran’s statements there is talk of miles of differences between locations with his lies. It was all made up.
Pauw: Okay Peter, let’s establish two things here. First, there is no disagreement about the fact that Joran has lied. You have admitted that and admitted that that was a stupid thing to do. And if you hadn’t done that everything would have gone differently. On the other hand, we’ve seen in the Netherlands that in some cases the OM has shown to have a "tunnel vision".
Witteman: Because they think this suspect has to be the one that did it. And in this case there maybe were a number of different things and you address them in your book, that had they not just been focused on Joran, then other things could have been investigated. Has that been done in the mean time?
Paul: No. On the contrary, now that the judge has decided that Joran is no longer a suspect, the day after that, the OM came with the statement that he remains the person that they’re interested in. After two and a half years, wherein all possible coercive means were used. I cannot understand that. At that point in time, after sticking for two and a half years to someone's tail, the OM should have come to the conclusion that this person is not only no longer a suspect, but he must be considered innocent as well.
Peter: Well, if you come up with these kind of theories, I am very glad that you didn’t manage to become a judge.
Witteman: When you had two and a half years of investigation…(Unintelligible)
Joran: And it has cost over 10 million dollars. They did all kinds of things… searches, experts, airplanes…
Pauw: What, according to you, should be investigated, that hasn’t been investigated yet?
Paul: Well, what stands out is that there has never been a clear profile of the girl. What kind of a girl was she? Who were her contacts? I never saw anywhere something very simple, that the computer of the girl was looked into. I never saw that the family of the girl was investigated. Her friends. Where you really have to start the investigation, is with the people closest to the girl, and really after 10 million dollars, that has not happened.
Peter: You forget the people she was last seen with….
Witteman: Yes, I wanted to say that as well. You begin of course with the people she was last seen with. But your suggestion, what could that mean... when you look into her surroundings... what, doing so, could possibly be found about what happened on that beach?
Anita: We know that people have been seen on the beach. We know that the electronic swipe card from the hotel has been used, within a time frame she could have walked, we know that the card has been used three times. We know that security guards were in the neighborhood. It looks like she could have used the card, to get into the room.
Peter: Other people could have used that card.
Joran: Her room was on the ground floor.
Anita: You can walk straight from the beach to her room. There are about 7 or 8 statements, that witnesses have seen her walking.
Witteman: There’s a statement by a cashier who says she first saw Natalee with a man who a short time later she saw without the girl. Has there been no proper investigation into these facts?
Paul and Anita: No.
Paul: There is a video supposedly of Natalee, but we still haven’t had access to that video.
Anita: The video from the Holiday Inn, yes. The hall from the Holiday Inn. The "Missing" poster we just saw. There are several versions of a poster. Beth Holloway came with her family to my school. This is 48 hours later, yes. She was on the island very quickly, which I would do also. She came inside the school, she brought with her the "Kidnapped" poster. But there is an other poster with "Hootie, call Big Hootie". Then you think: "Oh, this girl has run away". She also hung posters in the school with "Kidnapped by Joran van der Sloot", within a very short period of time. I thought, you can't do this, this is strange. I had, and still have the feeling that there is more. Behind all this is a different story, not behind Joran, but on the other side. I would like to see this investigated.
Witteman: Well, this is Natalee’s mother who some percieve as being rather fanatic…
(Video)
Beth Holloway: What I like to say to Joran is, tell what you did with my daughter when you raped her, finished raping her, what did you do with her? That's all we're asking. We want to know where she is.
(Video ends)
Witteman: Are you in contact with this woman?
Paul: Our first contact with her was in the beginning. We had asked the police several times if we could get in contact with the family. The police didn't think that was such a good idea. But some time later she showed up at our door and I invited her in. And there we had a conversation which was very intense. I sat there with open arms, because we had a lot of sympathy for the situation she was in. And we wanted her to know that.
Anita: We felt that was very difficult. That was a very difficult moment.
Witteman: Did you keep in contact with her?
Paul: The next day she was going to return, but did not. She did send a television reporter. Then she went to the police and gave the police her account of the conversation.
Pauw: One thing we may still have time for. When we started, we showed that Peter tried to get in contact with you. And Peter, you held something in your hand, namely a picture. Let’s watch for a second… or do you have it with you?
Peter: Yes, coincidentally I have this picture with me. It’s this picture, it’s a picture...
Pauw: Can you... you are experienced at this, Peter… you know how to do this…
Peter: In this picture we can see it was taken at Natalee’s home, and apparrently it has Joran with Natalee in it. And that of course is impossible, because they had never met there. And this is a picture that was made... with Joran knowing it, and maybe even photoshopped for Joran... where the impression was made of them being there together willingly and knowingly. And then you wonder…. well let’s say, I don’t see very much sense of sympathy in there. If you do that knowing that the girl is still missing, her mother desperate, you saying you have nothing to do with it, and at the same time making this kind of photoshop humor…
Pauw: Where did you get this picture?
Peter: It was placed into my hands by someone who was involved in this.
Pauw: Joran, you recognize that picture?
Joran: I know that picture, yes.
Pauw: You write about it in your book as well. What’s the idea behind that picture?
Joran: Yes… I didn’t do it myself, but it was a joke of course. Yes it was actually a joke. And now that you bring that up this way, it indeed looks very strange… But the only way to get through all this, is to sometimes make jokes about it. Because for me this whole thing often is ridiculous.
Peter: Making jokes about the victim?
Witteman: Who photoshopped this picture?
Joran: Yes, that is not important. I won’t mention any names here…
Witteman: But not you?
Joran: Not by me.
Witteman: So it was sent to you…
Joran: Yes…
Witteman: Over the Internet or something like that?
Joran: Yes, I got it from someone I know, and it was…
Peter: And he even was paid for that, to do that…
Witteman: By…?
Joran: (Shrugs shoulders)
Peter: Yes, by…. he can say.
Witteman: By you?
Joran: No. Where did you get that idea?
Peter: Well, it was mentioned in the email in which I got the picture (Unintelligible)
Anita: But that person is not here at the table. We can’t ask him if what he said is true.
Peter: But I think you can believe me on my word ma'am.
Witteman: As a psychologist, or playing one... if he did kill that girl, he wouldn't fabricate a picture like that.
Peter: Well… I don’t know where you studied psychology, but …
Witteman: Just common sense. But there are limits to the way you deal with a victim of a disappearance…
Peter: Well, that’s something you can’t hold up like that…
Witt.: It’s exactly the same as you do in your…
Peter: There are very gruesome examples of people who did things and neither afterwards sympathy with their victims…
Pauw: Okay… We’re going to conclude our conversation at the table here. What would you still want to happen in this case?
question: What would you like to see happen now?
Anita: I would like to see the investigation to be continued, and maybe Peter de Vries can help with that, maybe we can talk about that a little later. I also would like an investigation of the investigation. I don't know if we can have that hope, but as long as this situation is not resolved, there will always be an enormous pressure on Joran, on all of us, as a family, our surroundings, our family, the parents of Natalee herself. I think that is also very important, that it becomes very clear for them. That should be first, and then we can progress. As long as that does not happen, everyone will have questions, fingers will continue be pointed at Joran. For myself, I can be 100% certain that Joran did not do it.
Witteman: Do you think she’s dead?
Anita: I don't know, I have thought for a long time that she is alive, and there ahve been indications she is. And those facts have to be investigated. Rene Gielen on Curacao is making a documentary, she has interviewed a lot a people, we know because she's in contact with us. I really would like for the other side of the story to also be investigated.
Witteman: Do you think she’s dead?
Paul: I don’t think she’s dead. I think the chance she’s still alive may very well be there.
Witteman: Do you think she’s dead?
Joran: I have doubts. I think that when a person is missing for three years, that you would be a very bad person to see all that is happening, and you still don’t come forward yourself to state you’re still alive. Or, or… if she’s still alive, I think she’s held against her will…
Witteman: Held in captivity.
Joran: Yes, held in captivity.
Witt.: You will continue your study in the Netherlands… and your mother says you keep walking with this case on your shoulders. Do you agree with that?
Joran: Yes. I try my best to not be busy with this in my daily life…
Witt.: And that goes well?
Joran: Yes, that goes OK. But of course it's still something you always carry with you, and things have happened… Of course I have eventually spent 116 days in prison in Aruba, and there are things you don’t forget so easilly. All those things were no pleasure.
Anita: And I say, a part of his imprisonment was correct, because of his lies.
Witteman: We very much appreciate that you wanted to come in our show. That goes for Peter R. de Vries as well. Peter, do you think have have had enough of this case by now? Or will you continue to investigate?
Peter: No, this case is not over yet. I understand they would want that, but as long as Natalee has not been found, this case is not over for me.
Pauw: We just heard Anita say that she wants the investigation to continue…?
Anita: We want it to continue.
Anita and Peter: (Unintelligible)
Witteman: Will you now cooperate?
Peter: Well I would gladly hear what they want… and what information they have to offer.
Joran: And if there is ever clarity about what happened, and it turns out you were wrong after all, will you then apologize to me? Are you man enough for that?
Peter: What do you think?
Joran: I don’t think so.
Peter: No?
Witteman: Nice way to end the show.
Pauw: Okay, we’ll agree if that happens, it happens at this table. Thanks.
http://www.hollowaycase.com/archive/media/jorandevries.htm
