Voiceover:  Paul and Anita van der Sloot speak for the first time about the dramatic disappearance of Natalee Holloway and the possible connection with that disappearance and their 17 year old son, Joran.

Paulus van der Sloot: Because Joran didn't tell the truth immediately, he has brought himself into a difficult position, because of which, of course, there will be doubts about his later declarations.

[snip introduction of other news items]

Host (Jeroen Pauw): Good evening, welcome to Nova. The disappearance of Natalee has now been over a month.  Later, we have an exclusive interview with Paul and Anita van der Sloot, the parents of Joran, the Dutch main suspect.  Paul was released from prison Sunday night. But, first, the facts of a month of stress, misery and the American media circus on the island of Aruba.

Voiceover:  May twenty-fourth, Natalee Holloway, an eighteen year old school girl goes with a hundred of her fellows to Aruba for a five day vacation.  May thirtieth, on the last vacation evening, she goes to Carlos 'n Charlies bar. Friends see her step into a car around one o' clock.  May thirty-first, the next morning, she doesn't show up for the flight back to America. The police find her packed bags and her passport in her hotel room.  June second,  her family starts a search action and offers a reward of  fifty thousand dollars for tips.

[Video clip of Beth talking and showing some cards she hands out]

Voiceover:  June fourth, there are three young suspects. They say they have dropped Natalee at her hotel at two am. Security cameras did not record that. One of the three boys is the son of an Aruban judge.

M Croes: The stories among them also didn't match. Then they were marked as suspects.
Reporter: The three witnesses became suspects and spoke against each others' statements?
M Croes:  What I can say is that the declaration they made as witnesses weren't right. No.

Voiceover:  June eighteenth,  the Aruban police question Paul van der Sloot, judge in training and father of one suspect, Joran.  June twenty-third, the father is even arrested and held for three days. June twenty-sixth, the day before yesterday, Paul van der Sloot, the father of Joran becomes free again.

Arie Swan (attorney for Paulus  van der Sloot ): He wants to process this. I believe that as a human he has the right to process this. He wants to go to his home as fast as possible, be with his wife and does not want to comment now. He does not want to say things he will regret later or will be interpreted differently by people. 

Host (Jeroen Pauw): Ok, that was then, I am going to talk with Twan Huys in Aruba, because now the family van der Sloot has spoken. You have been there.  How was the situation?

Reporter (Twan Huys): We just came from the house.  First to explain, on the request of  the father, van der Sloot, we mention his full last name. He told me, "I am no longer a suspect and I have no objections if the family name comes into publicity now." Then, the situation in front of the house there, an absurd situation. There are a number of phones, mobile phones that are ringing every second. Every producer here of an American network tries to get an exclusive interview with the family. Sometimes, camera crews show up in front of the fence of the house.  The family barely dares to leave the house, because the moment they leave their house, camera crews are waiting for them and ask for comments. The other view inside the house is that there are many bouquets of flowers from people on the island and friends, also from the Netherlands, who want to support the family. What I noticed, the hours we were there, is that the parents feel locked up in that house. They are being assisted by two friends, lawyers from the Netherlands.  They try to help, but it is, also for them, a matter of waiting of what is going to happen.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw):  How long did you speak with the parents?

Reporter (Twan Huys):  We entered at eight o clock, Aruban time, and it wasn't certain we were going to get this interview.  They wanted to have an orientation talk first, and eventually after a few hours they agreed to a talk, the reason being that they wanted to offer counterweight against all the publicity from the family of Natalee Holloway. Most of all, because the American media for weeks, on and on, every evening, pays so extremely much attention to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, and so also to the honor of the van der Sloot family. Indeed, my first question was, "Why this interview today for NOVA?"

Paulus van der Sloot:  Actually, I didn't want to speak about this case at all.  What is at hand is that that girl is found and brought back.  That is where all the attention should be directed.  In fact, me, the family, we are side issues.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Why are you doing it anyway? Why do you speak about the case?

Paulus van der Sloot:  I am being forced now, because of the enormous media circus that is being built around it. That puts Joran and my family in the picture.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  I just saw you are wearing a bracelet.

Anita van der Sloot: Yes. 

Reporter (Twan Huys):  "Hope for Natalee" is written on that.  Why do you wear that?

Anita van der Sloot:  Because, I really, really hope that girl appears. I have a very positive feeling she is alive, that she is somewhere, and I hope she appears, and that is something we all want.  That is what we thought from the start, wanted and hoped.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Which function do you have here at the island?  Because many stories go around about that. What is your function?

Paulus van der Sloot: I am a replacing member of the joint court of justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba [1] and I am appointed for a period of three years, from January the first, 2003, until January the first, 2006.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  So, you are replacement judge?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.

Reporter (Twan Huys): Do you know the people very well, for example, the people here from the public prosecutors' office that ordered your detention?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, for sure, because, before that, I have worked for eight years as chief of the cabinet of the prosecutor general [2].

Reporter (Twan Huys): So, you also know the current prosecutor general?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Mrs. Croes.

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes. Van Stratten and Paulus

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Yes, and what does that mean when your colleagues stop by to arrest you?

Paulus van der Sloot: That gives a feeling of absurdity.  It is indeed almost unimaginable that by someone you actually know very well, where you worked together with for a long time, that that one comes to tell you that you are suspected of complicity to murder.

Reporter (Twan Huys): Who was that in your case?

Paulus van der Sloot: That was, in this case, that was the leader of the team of police commissioners.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Jan van der Straaten.

Paulus van der Sloot: That was Jan van der Straaten, yes.

Reporter (Twan Huys): And you know each other very well?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes.  Beth Twitty Arrives

Host ( Jeroen Pauw): Twan, let's go back to Monday evening, the thirtieth of May.  That was a crucial night. What happened then?

Reporter (Twan Huys):  It is the evening, Jeroen, on which the parents of Natalee fly into Aruba.  More precisely, the mother and the stepfather.  They don't believe she just walked away, or that there is nothing wrong.  They are sure something serious is going on. So they take the first plane from Alabama, where they are from, to here, Aruba, and arrive in the evening.

They go to the police and together go to the house of Joran, of the van der Sloot family . Then, it is night already, around two. In the middle of the night, they arrive there with a company of police and other people and they ring. 

The father, van der Sloot is sleeping, he opens the door and asks,  "What is going on? Why are are here?"  " For our disappeared daughter, who was last seen with your son."  He doesn't know all that yet. The father van der Sloot goes to an apartment, next to the house, where Joran always sleeps and opens the door and Joran is not in his apartment.  He is not sleeping  there. And then, the father picks up the mobile phone, he calls his son and he appears to be in a casino somewhere here on Aruba at that time.   And that is where we pick up the story. The son is in a casino and eventually there is a meeting at the house of van der Sloot with all these people. The parents of Natalee, the son and the father.

Paulus van der Sloot: He was, at that moment, again, not at home without me knowing it. Then, I called Joran on his mobile phone, and then he said that he was by the Wyndam. That is also a casino here in the neighborhood. Then, we drove there immediately, but he had, he said that he had misunderstood me, because he came home already. So, then all of us went back home, and around three, with quite a group, we spoke with Joran that night.

Reporter (Twan Huys): How did that conversation go?

Paulus van der Sloot: Understandably, these people were quite excited [3]. I  tried to calm these people down as much as possible. I also said to Joran, he has to direct himself as much as possible to the police officers and not to  the people of whom it was uncertain what their status was.

Reporter (Twan Huys): You didn't want him to let himself be interrogated, or maybe started saying things that were not right to total strangers?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, I think, anyway it was, for me, more trusting, if he would direct himself to the police officers.

Reporter (Twan Huys): Did it become clear for you what happened that night, with Joran in relation to Natalee?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, that became clear to me.

Reporter (Twan Huys): Which story did he tell you then?

Paulus van der Sloot: That he initially met her earlier that day in the Holiday Inn casino, where he was, as well, to play a free tournament.  That, then it was agreed to meet in Carlos and Charlies.  That, he initially did not want that, but that he went there anyway, and that he met her there, in Carlos and Charlies. That, then, with his two friends, Deepak and Satish, drove around a bit with her around the island, that they were making out [4] some on the backseat and that in the end he dropped her off at the Holiday inn. That was the story.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  And you thought, "This is it, now it is done."

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, I continued to believe in that story.  I had never, all these days after, received a clue that it would be incorrect.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  When did you find out that it was, nevertheless, different than how it was told by your son in the first place?

Paulus van der Sloot:  He was arrested and then he changed his declaration.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw):  Ok, Twan, so there are different declarations. What did Joran say in his second declaration?

Reporter (Twan Huys): Very simple, Jeroen, in his first declaration, he has said that, indeed,  that he went, together with his two friends and Natalee, to the beach and that, that night, deep in the night, actually in the morning, all of them went back to the Holiday Inn hotel, where she was staying, and dropped her off there. That story is incorrect. That story, as told, has been retracted by Joran and also by his both friends, who are also still stuck [in jail].  He did that as soon as he was arrested and was interrogated by the police. He also never told the story as he told to the police to his parents.  His declaration now is that he left Natalee alone on the beach, and then went home by himself, and that his two friends were nowhere near that. That is the second version, and until now Joran holds on to that, under severe police interrogation. 

Host ( Jeroen Pauw):  Any idea how Natalee's parents will react if they will see this interview, between you and the parents of Joran?

Reporter (Twan Huys):  I have, like I said to you in the broadcast of yesterday, trodded along the past two days with the parents of Natalee, at least with her mother and stepfather. They are convinced that the son, Joran, and the father, Paul, are the key to finding their daughter back, and I think they will not be convinced by the interview.  But they have not seen it, because we just recorded it. Anyway, I asked Paul van der Sloot, what he thinks of the fact that the parents of Natalee are convinced that the answer to all their questions are with the Van der Sloot family .

Paulus van der Sloot:  I have also spoken with the mother and I think it is a pity that, apparently, I have not been able to convince her that that is not the case. During that conversation, I had the feeling I had a reasonable contact with her and I tried to make it clear that the key is not with us, but, apparently, she didn't pick it up that way.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Can you imagine the suspicion from them after the first declaration of Joran was incorrect? And that in there, other things were said than what really happened?

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes, because Joran did not tell the truth immediately, he has brought himself in a cumbersome position, as a result of which, his later declarations can be doubted. He brought himself into that position, yes. Possibly, he can give an explanation why he changed his declaration, but that is the difficult position that he is in.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  The picture that is being painted in the American media is that Aruba is an island where everybody knows everybody. Mr. van der Sloot is with the judicial powers, he can pull strings other people can't, he knows everyone and that is why there is no breakthrough in this case. What is your reaction to that?

Paulus van der Sloot: That is completely incorrect.  The moment it became clear that Joran was going to be involved in this case in one way or another, I asked for leave and I have not been at the court anymore.  That is, to make very clear, most of all, I am now a father and not a judge.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Because you realized that else these stories would be brought into the world?

Paulus van der Sloot:  In this situation you have to avoid every appearance [of impropriety].

Reporter (Twan Huys): On the day you were arrested, this past Thursday, with which communication were you told?  What was told to you as to why you were taken into custody?

Father and Natalie

Paulus van der Sloot: That was not told to me when I was apprehended.  During the apprehension I was told that I was suspected of complicity to murder manslaughter and usurpatory freedom spoliation (kidnapping).  During the session with the judge [5], it was told that the suspicion originated, because that Monday night, when so many people were standing there in front of the door, I allegedly declared that at four o'clock, I picked up Joran.  And someone else, allegedly declared that I picked up Joran and Natalee, while my own declaration was, directed at police officers, that I picked up Joran at eleven o'clock at the McDonald's. That is, of course remarkable that the public prosecutor's office adds two witness statements of people who were standing somewhere in the back, and not the witness declaration from the police officers, where I direct myself to, and directed myself to, as much as possible.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  And these declarations were the base for your arrest and incarceration?

Paulus van der Sloot: Together with the fact that I allegedly instructed the boys, Deepak, Satish and Joran what they should do, say or do, in case of a possible apprehension. And indeed, I have, when I foresaw that they could go from witness to suspect, explained them the procedure, with the intention that they will not panic. But, also that was enough for the prosecutor's office to suspect me of complicity.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw):  Yes, now, Joran is still stuck [in jail].  Do his parents have any contact with him? Do they still speak with him?

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Jeroen, only the mother is still allowed access to Joran. The father not, because he is a suspect, as well initially.  Maybe that changes in the upcoming days. The mother told me that Joran is under enormous pressure, that he is being interrogated for hours and that the two lawyers, the friends who were present this morning at their home were talking about an interrogation that looks like the currently forbidden, at least in the Netherlands, "Zaanse" interrogation method [7], which boils down to that indeed, you, for hours, put someone under pressure, and they are quite worried about that.  They also told that they were afraid that their son might, after all these weeks, possibly come through in a manner that has nothing to do with the truth and instead is going to say what is being expected from him.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw): Because, all in all, although he is being cocky and sits in the casino, he is a boy of 17.

Reporter (Twan Huys) to the host: Yes, he is a boy of 17 and his future was looking bright.  He had just done a few entry exams at a few universities in America and was also accepted at one university and he was going to give a party two weeks ago, he because he passed his exams. That didn't happen, of course. The big question is now what his parents think of his declarations until now. Do you still believe in the innocence of your son Joran?

Reporter (Twan Huys) to Paul: Are you still today convinced of the innocence of Joran?

Anita van der Sloot: Yes, yes, one hundred percent. Yes. I am sure Joran is innocent.

Paulus van der Sloot: Yes. I, the way I know Joran, I can't imagine that he harmed that girl in any way.

Reporter (Twan Huys):  Do you have an explanation for the fact that Joran initially told another story than what happened that night?

Anita van der Sloot:  I think that anxiety [6], panic, maybe.

Paulus van der Sloot: There is, of course, one victim and that is Natalee and the parents.  That is the main issue, we assume that Natalee will reappear.  That would be the key. In that aspect, we stay side issues and this can be overcome. We shouldn't take on the role of victims. I still believe and hope that people think, that they see the madness of what is happening here, that at this moment it is actually not about the girl anymore, but that a whole circus has been built, a media circus, that has its own interests and its own agenda.  I hope people see that and that they realize what this is actually about.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw): In closing, Twan, how should we weigh the words of these parents?

Reporter (Twan Huys):Jeroen, I had the impression they were sincere in the words they spoke to us.  The father of Joran compares his position with the writer, Albert Camu, who wrote a book De Val (The Fall).  He said, "Like in the eye of the hurricane." And again, I have the impression that they speak sincerely, but in the declarations of Joran there is unclarity, also the declarations of his two friends, and yeah, even a police team of 23 detectives don't get the bottom stone up, so it is very difficult to give a judgment about that.

Host ( Jeroen Pauw): Good. Hopefully, tomorrow you will be back with us with more news about this case of Natalee Holloway
 

Notes from the translator (Jacob, who posts as "dugo" on the internet):
[1] plaatsvervangend lid van het gemeenschappelijk hof van justitie van de nederlandse antillen en Aruba
[2] kabinetschef van de procureur generaal
[3] opgewonden, maybe more aroused
[4] vrijen, the word implies some intimacy and acts being consensual. Judging this context, Paulus does not mean intercourse. The translator, Jacob, aka "dugo," says, " Trust me on this one."
[5] rechter-commisaris. judge type, overseer of prosecution
[6] benauwdheid, literally suffocation, but used this way it means anxiety
[7] A telltale sign of the Zaanse interrogation method is the use of rewritten "theoretical" confessions (described elsewhere in this case).
 

Dave Holloway has made public statements that Joran admitted to sexual assault.  Beth Twitty has made similar assertions.  It is not clear if they are saying that this was an admission made in an interrogation or something that was overheard by another prisoner or whether it came from another source (such as an internet theory?), or whether they were referring to the night of the Twitty (and friends, along with two Aruban police) visit to the Van der sloot home where Joran was said by some to have admitted to having had sex with Natalee. 

Validity:  Being drunk,  does not necessarily make an individual unable to carry on a conversation or to make decisions. Having sex with a drunken female is not prima facie evidence of rape (or sexual assault). If that were so then there would be a million rapes every Saturday night all over the US. The legal criteria is whether someone is too incapacitated to be able to give consent. 

About detainment specifications.  An aruban attorney unrelated to the case stated that in the detainment specifications were suspicion of murder, kidnapping and sexual assault of an unconscious person.   However, attaching significance to this is not necessarily well founded.  This is because, when a suspect is brought in under Aruban law they have to detain them with the full extent of what eventually might be charged, even though no evidence might be known. It is a seemingly strange way (the reverse to the US system), but that is the way it is done. Therefore, they let their imaginations run wild and the detainment description is written for a wide range of things as in this case, perhaps from murder to kidnapping and even sexual assault with an unconscious person, if they can imagine that, but that is not an indication of a real suspicion of anything or any facts in evidence.

Often the prosecutor and sometimes even local Aruban attorneys incorrectly state these in a media announcements as "charges," because of language difficulties. So, it could be that this wide range of detainment conditions is the source of the rumors about the sexual assault as those conditions for detainment have been leaked and misinterpreted by some (maybe the Twittys) as being evidence of crimes.

The first mention of this came from Beth Twitty. 
 

Then this was refueled later from Jug Twitty and from Dave Holloway
 

Then the next day this is what Dave said:

However, in a interview on August 26, Dave Holloway talked about the statement that Joran made on the night when the Twitty's questioned Joran at his home (the night following her disappearance). His conclusion  was somewhat different than his earlier statements.  Dave said then that he understood that Joran stated that had sex, but that it was consensual. Dave said that to his knowledge this was the origin of the claims that Joran had admitted to sexual assault. 

You can draw your own conclusions from these statements. Some people have speculated that this admission, combined with the Deepak email (see entry below), where he talked about Natalee falling asleep, caused some to conclude that Joran had sexual relations with an unconscious Natalee. And perhaps that might be the reason for accusations of assault.

See the entry number 7 (below) in these unsubstantiated statements regarding Joran's confession (actually an accusation of Deepak).  In this unverified statement Joran is supposed to have surmised that Deepak raped Natalee.

Although newspaper articles and television shows have led with the headline that Deepak Kalpoe confessed to sexually assaulting Natalee and also accused his brother, Satish Kalpoe, and his friend, Joran Van der Sloot, of also having sexual intercourse with her, there is more to this story than sensational headlines and misleading soundbites.  This stems from a very questionable "interview" which, although recorded in August, was not released to the Aruban legal investigators. It was held secretively and then aired publicly for the first time in September on an American television show, "The Dr Phil Show."   While it may not be of any evidentiary value, Aruban authorities would like to examine it.  As yet it has not been submitted to them.

This is discussed in detail in a separate page which describes:

a. The circumstances of how the tape was made, 
b. The transcript of the "interview," 
c. Discussions about its validity and authenticity
d. Deepak's attorney's answer 
e. Response of Aruban Police Chief about efforts to get tape.
f.  Additional accusation (of Joran) said to be on tape (not aired yet).

Click to read: Deepak confession interview

Links are on that page to bring you back to this page and other pages

A witness known as to the press as "the gardener" presented testimony before the judge of instruction that at 2:30 am on the morning of the Monday, May 30, 2005, he saw a car matching the description of Deepak Kalpoe's automobile in front of the Racquet Club which is across from the Marriott Beach (Palm Beach). He states that he saw all three "suspects" in the car at that time.  If this information is correct then the statements of the Kalpoes and Joran would have been refuted because the Kalpoes say they were home at that time and Joran says he  still at the beach.

Validity: According to statements from the Kalpoe attorneys, the time presented by the gardener was in direct conflict with facts already in evidence, namely the logging on of the Kalpoe brothers' PC at home and of the evidence from mobile phone grids showing location of  cellphone calls from Joran which would have placed him at the Palm Beach (also known as Marriott beach).

Many thought (even hoped) that the testimony of the gardener would land the Kalpoes back in jail. Upon questioning it turns out the opposite. Even the judge reprimanded the gardener for not being consistent in his answers.

However, if you see Joran's statement version 2 (see Evidence Line) and you consider along with that, the unverified Joran confession (or Joran accusation of Deepak), which is entry number 6 on this page,  then that would mean that the computer data is not valid (Satish could have been on the computer, while Deepak was out in the car).  If that were the case then maybe the three in the car were Deepak, and two other people (not Joran or Satish, since we have evidence they were both at home).

Some have theorized that Joran and the Kalpoes have used date rape drugs in the past.  They describe how on personal websites Joran was making references to having used date rape drugs to seduce girls in bars.  This theory says that perhaps Joran and the Kalpoes followed a pattern of  finding American tourist girls on their last night in Aruba and at closing time slipping them a date rape drug knowing that they wouldn't have any recollection of the later sexual assault events of the evening (until perhaps back in their home city in the US).
Validity:  While an interesting theory without having a body to check for residual drugs or other supporting evidence this would not be able to be presented in a trial.

Link to the "Deepak e-mail"

http://scrux.com/natalee/deepakemail.htm

Deepak said in that unverified  Natalee was "very drunk" while still in C&C.

In addition Deepak susposedly states that:

"so after like 10 min my friend is telling me that natalee fell asleep i said you kidding just wake her up and tell ask her if its holiday"

Validity:  No way to verifiy the legitimacy of this email.  If it is true there might be information here which could provide some clues.

Aruban newspaper Diario published, what the newspaper says is, a signed police interview (not by Joran, but by a policemen whose signatures are not shown) on June 13 with Joran van der Sloot in which van der Sloot says Deepak Kalpoe raped, killed, and burried Natalee Holloway.

The Diario had been reporting on this document for some time but were been accused by competing local media for making it up. The item was published verbatim. Jossy Manur assures and claims that it is a direct copy of the police document, obtained through one of his sources. It has not been independently verified.
  Deepak Setup

Validity:  No one has seen this "document," except the newspaper editor Jossy Mansur (El Diario).  Evidently a copy (or translation of it) was given to Beth Twitty who took it with her on a trip to Alabama.   Joran's attorney said that it is possible Joran might have said something to the interrogators like this, but only in an off handed manner, just out of frustration of them asking him what he thinks might have happened.  He said that Joran has never offerered or maintained the position that Deepak had anything to do with Natalee's disappearance.  Further, it is against the law for the prosecution or police to allow any interrogation documents to be made public, so the credibility of this being an actual police statement is questionable. 
 

When asked about this statement in an interview with Greta Van Susteran David Kock, Satish Kalpoe's attorney responded with this:
 

Maybe Joran was actually telling the truth in his second version  (after telling the Holiday Inn lie). See version 2 in the Evidence Line page.  In Joran's second version, he said  that Deepak came back picked him up to the beach and took him home. Notice that Joran only changed his story when the police interrogators showed him the computer records (and  showed him Deepak's statement that he was home on the computer.)  Further, news reports at the time said that the interrogator allowed Deepak and Joran to be together in an interrogation room  which was highly criticized in the press.   Reportedly, after  they showed them each other's statements,  was said that Deepak got angry with Joran about Joran's version 2 and emphatically told him that the computer records showed he was home. Joran then changed his statement to version 3.  Very strange.

Perhaps,  the police have concluded (as David Kock said) that the only proof that Joran's version 2 didn't happen is those computer records. If the computer records) are the only proof that version 2 isn't factual, maybe it is the truth.  Maybe the computer records were altered during the ten days prior to arrest.  Maybe, it was Satish on the computer.  If so, then it could be deduced that  Deepak went back and picked up Joran (and then did other things). 

So, with some simple deductive reasoning, the alibi for Deepak goes away and now the Joran accusation takes on much more significance. Maybe Joran heard Deepak confess this whole scenario to him during the ten days before they were incarcerated.   Maybe that is why we saw the police taking Joran out to the beach on two occasions for an expansion of his accusation.  Maybe Deepak after taking Joran home picked up a couple of friends who went back to the beach.  Maybe they gang raped Natalee, killed her and then buried her body.

Some convincing substantiation of Joran's account:
 

More to come

This has mainly come from statements by Beth Twitty and has been repeated by many media commentators. Generally, the logic advanced here is that anyone telling that many stories must be quilty of causing harm to Natalee.

Validity:  It maybe that the whole 22 versions recounting has been a "spin" done with Beth Twitty (maybe she was helping the investigation knowingly) as  an effort by the police to take the emphasis away from the 3 versions which Joran told.  This would be because of the significance of Joran's version 2 (see the Evidence Line) in this investigation. The following is a quote from Greta Van Susterern:

It could be that the police have put out the 22 versions story to cloud the signifcance or the actuality that there were only 3 versions, because understanding that the difference between version 2 and version 3 might be the crux of solving the case.

Note that in the Evidence line we show and discuss the 3 versions of Joran's statements.  If version 2 is correct, then perhaps the unverified Joran accusation about Deepak (see the number 6 discussion on this page) was really made (it fits with version 2).  It could have been that the Twitty's were telling about the 22 versions as a red herring to take emphasis off of the 3 versions in order to make the Kalpoes more at ease while free.  It could be that the police have always believed version 2 and the so-called confession (accustation) and have been investigating that way all along.  Go back and read above,  the Joran confession (accusation) discussion (number 6) .

More to come

This was quite a story where a witness came forward and made statements that on a day shortly after the disappearance  he saw a blond haired body being disposed of in the local garbage landfill by people meeeting the descriptions of Joran, the Kalpoes, along with Paulus Van der sloot, Joran's father.  Even a pickup truck was described and a license plate given.

Validity:  The witness has changed his story several times.  The pickup truck was proven to be in another location.  Bon Dia (Aruban news source) says that the suspects were being interrogated at the same time as the witness says they were dumping a body.  The landfill was searched several times although the search was eventually called off without it being fully explored.

More to come

Unnecessary complication
What has always been troubling is not that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers first lied about dropping Natalee Holloway off at the Holiday Inn. It is reasonable to understand anyone wanting to avoid "embarrassment" after having done something uncouth.  Leaving a girl alone on the beach in the night is ungentlemanly by most standards and not something a young man would want family and friends to know about.  Aruba is a vacation paradise, and beaches are frequented at all hours of the night.  So, it might be logical to assume that a girl left alone, even in the wee hours of the morning, would have been just fine, might have met up with someone else and eventually would show up.  Therefore, a reasonable person might assume that no harm would come from providing a simple, but more "respectable," explanation, that she was taken to her hotel.  Girls on vacation often connect with others on the island and often spend the night in unplanned places. So, it is not a stretch of credibility that the girl could have been expected to show up later on her own.  Under ordinary circumstances such a cover story would be have been a harmless tale. 

But, what is bothersome is that this "cover" story, this lie, was too complicated.  It is too detailed, too convoluted to be excused as just an off-hand explanation given to avoid embarassment.  They all told a lie with so many unnecessary details.  We heard that she fell upon getting out of the car, that Joran went around to help and that Natalee said she didn't want assistance. Then, they added the security guard scene, complete with a description of the clothing. It is all so unnecessarily compounded. If there had been a simple story, such as, "We dropped her at the Holiday Inn and waved good-bye," that would fit the format of an "I-don't-want-to-look-bad" excuse.  Once we find that this "story" was a lie, however, the question immediately becomes, "Why was the lie so complicated?" Experienced interrogators know that such a complicated lie often provides valid reasons for suspicion of something hidden.  A complex lie, when a simple one would have sufficed, is often an indication that the prevaricator is wanting to convey information to explain away circumstances which might come out later, such as an injury subsequently discovered on the body of a victim.  "She fell when getting out" might have been offered to provide a reason for an head contusion or cut, which might have been anticipated as being discovered later in an autopsy.

Failure to correct quickly
Irrespective of a cover story being logically excusable and told "just out of embarrassment," when Natalee didn't show up after a day, anyone with scruples would have told then what really happened.  A, "keeping up my reputation" excuse,  with a rapid correction after a day passed, might be explained as "17 year old" thinking.  The key for forgiveness is "instant" correction.   Doing the right thing cleanses.  But, the grace period would be a matter of hours.  Don't forget, all three knew they were preserving a blatant lie, while people were desperate to find her, while they knew police were investigating.  Anyone would know; time is critical in finding a missing person. It is obvious that the three intentionally and knowingly misdirected the police in the most crucial point of the investigation. Plus, they misdirected for a very long time; at least nine days. Why did they do that? That remains the burning question.

It is reasonable to expect a moral compass
So, applying reasonable standards, most would expect them to have had the proper "moral compass."   It would take a certain, determined callousness not to fix the falsehood with the truth, when things looked worse than they originally thought.  Certainly, after 24 hours, someone who knew that her family had been to Joran's home would feel an obligation to want to help find her.  What motivation would have kept anyone from telling the police, as well as everyone looking, that the original story was completely not the truth?  It is reasonable to think that, of the three, at least one would have wanted that search to have begun in earnest from the last location where she was seen. 

So,  the lie wasn't told simply and, most important, the lie wasn't abandoned quickly.  It was only after ten days had passed and they were arrested and shown the surveillance video tapes from the Holiday Inn.  You have to ask, "Why?" Buy time

For at least nine days the three intentionally misdirected the police.  Why?

Perhaps they knew a search would be futile
Why would someone not feel the urgency to reveal the truth about where they left a missing girl?  If you left her on a beach and she hadn't shown up after a day, wouldn't you want to get  teams searching from that location?   Perhaps, they didn't because they knew it was futile.   We know for certain that none of the three showed any true desire to help look for Natalee. They would have corrected their deception. They would have helped in the search. Instead of helping to findher,  they repeatedly (by Joran's admission) met at Joran's house to firm up their "story." Was it because they knew full well that there was no emergency?  A reasonable explanation is that they all knew she was already dead.  Maybe they knew that her body was not even on the island.  It is hard to explain any other way: three people not feeling any compulsion or compassion to want to help in her search.  Where was she was last seen? What did you see in the area? What are other details that needed to be told?  Once they knew she had been gone way too long to have just "slept in," unless they had reasons to know a search would be in vain, they would have been out there, showing right where they left her and then helping in the search.
.
Perhaps they needed time to cover a crime
Coupled with knowing there was no urgency, not coming forward quickly, fits a pattern of criminal behavior where activivites are done to delay, to allow a crime scene to be cleaned, a body disposed, evidence to be destroyed.

Perhaps they wanted even more time 
They secured more time by allowing the Security Guards to remain in jail. That is undisputed. This sequence is probative that they were securing time before revealing the truth (or what they say is the truth). Was it to cover their tracks?   It is problematic because it fits into the "modus operendi" of a criminal "buying time," delaying for his own self interests.  Allthough they didn't specifically frame the guards, they didn't jump to their defense when those two were arrested. Common respect for one's fellow man, being falsely accused, should have motivated them to instantly tell their beach story (assuming even that's the truth) abandoning the Holiday Inn prevarication. What reason did they have to prolong that situation?  Why did they need more time?

Four concerns which warrant suspicion of wrong doing
1. Unnecessary complication (for someone just telling a fib to spare embarrassment). 
2. Not correcting the story when it was apparent she wasn't coming back after a full day.
3. Not correcting the story the very moment innocent people were arrested. 
4. Prolonging their revealing of the last place they saw her for up to ten days.

Something bad evidently did happen
So, because of these concerns it seems apparent to many that something isn't right. It appears that something bad did happen. These logical steps cause a reasonable person to now question the beach story, giving rise to speculation that they chose that place for the second story as just a more coverable lie.  There were no cameras there to refute it (like the Holiday Inn) and simply it seems to be more conceivable than the first. But, if the second story is also a lie, where did they really leave her? 

In spite of these concerns, most people do remain believers in "IUPG" (innocent until proven guilty) and in needing evidence which convinces beyond a reasonable doubt. Those very principles may mean that this crime is never solved. It is a basic tenet of our free society that no one (even the guilty) should ever be railroaded into a conviction based on hunches and gut feelings. So, we must direct our efforts toward attempting to sort out facts from theory and rumor. 

However, it is difficult not to have justifiably strong suspicions of guilt.  Certainly, all the circumstances of the admitted lie make such suspicions credible. What the authorities need is some evidence. Hopefully, this same position is shared by the Aruban Police, the Prosecutor and the FBI. 
 

Two exculpatory statements - are admissible as evidence of guilt

There is yet another problem with the two stories, which is realized with a simple bit of legal deductive reasoning. While the following discussion may be an exercise in legalistic logic it can serve to gain a very interesting perspective on why so many people remain convinced (in spite of no evidence of a crime) that the three suspects are guilty.

US case law which speaks to this situation:

Both stories are exculpatory
Saying the two versions are both exculpatory means that both of them taken at face value (by themselves) are stories which describe no criminal involvement. They serve to clear the suspect of any wrong doing. 

In a criminal proceeding, if a witness tells one accounting and then recants, and then tells what he now says is the truth (usually in the face of some evidence from another source, which would be incriminatory), you look for the reason he told the first lie. Invariably, the sequence makes sense, because while the first accounting was exculpatory (describing innocence), the second story (the truth) will be in some way incriminating (non exculpatory), therefore explaining or demonstrating the reason or need for the original lie. 

So the logic to be applied is that when you have two stories, and the first one is recanted for the second, but both are exculpatory, then you also suspect the second, because a recanted exculpatory alibi should logically be replaced with a story which confesses to, at least, some criminal activity (for example, accidental death and hiding a body or something worse). 

Where does this logic take us? It takes us to the understanding that, according to the experiential record of practiced interrogators, Joran's second story is also a lie or, perhaps, a partial truth. Maybe he did leave her on the beach. So, that part would be the truth (making the new story easier to tell and swear to). The various theories could then apply: Maybe she died accidentally. Maybe he went back and buried her (maybe with Deepak's help). Maybe, later he made arrangements (with perhaps a drug acquaintance) to have the body removed and disposed of at sea. Pure speculation, of course. 

It is important to consider that in the practice of studying testimony and applying logic to the way witnesses testify, especially concerning their own alibis, suspects who provide an exculpatory alibi and then recant that story, have traditionally done so because the truth (which they were trying to hide with the first story) describes their involvement in a crime. 

Joran's wanting to avoid embarrassment reason for telling his first (now admitted lie) simply doesn't rise to an appropriate level to assume any kind of logical justification for providing a such a complicated cover-up story.

Further US case law references on this subject:

It is easy to see why so many people (including the television show talking heads) remain convinced that at the least the three suspects have not told the whole story and worse they are covering up for a serious crime which some speculate was disposing of the victims body after an accidental death and some think even murder.  Hopefully, investigators are not at a dead end. The best approach in some people's opinion would be attractive awards for people giving information, which would lead to the arrest and conviction of anyone who participated in a crime. 

Courts in many circuits have approved giving  juries instruction of this nature:
      "False exculpatory statements are properly admissible as substantive evidence tending to show consciousness of guilt."