Statement Analysis
by Mark McClish
Natalee Holloway's Disappearance
Posted April 2, 2006
Joran Van der Sloot's Confession
Natalee Holloway, 18, disappeared while on a senior class trip to Aruba. She was there with classmates from Mountain Brook High School located in Mountain Brook, Alabama a suburb of Birmingham. Natalee was last seen on May 30, 2005 at about 1:30 a.m. leaving Carlos'n Charlie’s a popular bar and grill. She left the bar with three companions, Joran van der Sloot (17), and brothers Deepak Kalpoe (21) and Satish Kalpoe (18) in Deepak's car. The three young men initially told investigators they dropped Natalee off at her hotel. After further questioning, they changed their story and said that they dropped Natalee and Joran off at the beach near the Marriott Hotel at about 1:40 a.m. Joran claims that around 3:00 a.m. Satish picked him up and they left Natalee alone on the beach. She has not been seen since.
On June 9, 2005, Joran and the Kalpoe brothers were arrested for reasonable suspicion of murder and manslaughter involving Natalee's death. They were denied bond and taken into custody. Lacking hard evidence that a murder had occurred, on September 3, 2005 the three suspects were released from police custody. Natalee remains missing and the case remains open with Joran and the Kalpoe brothers as the prime suspects.
In February 2006, Chris Cuomo with ABC News interviewed Joran Van de Sloot on the show "Primetime Live." The showed aired on February 23, 2006. Even though you can buy a transcript of nearly all of the Primetime Live shows, ABC is not offering the transcript of Joran's interview. I wonder what they are afraid of. On their website, ABC has posted exerts of the interview. Let's take a look at a few that stand out.
Q. "Why should you be believed after all of the lying that you have done in this situation?"
A. "There is absolutely no reason to believe me."
Q. "Would you believe you?"
A. "Um I wouldn't probably not believe myself no."
Since people will sometimes be deceptive but rarely lie, we should believe what people tell us. Joran tells us that we should not believe him. "There is absolutely no reason to believe me." He states it a second time when he says, "I wouldn't probably not believe myself."
"After all the inconsistencies in his statements about Holloway's disappearance, van der Sloot told
ABC News' Primetime he understood why it was difficult for the media or other people to believe him."
"I don't trust the media, and I don't think, I don't really care, if the media trusts me or not," he said.
"I want to be trusted, and you earn that trust by telling the truth. And that's what I am trying
to do. … I'm just happy that I told the story. I said what happened, and that's good."
The word "trying" means a person has not done something. He has only attempted to do it. What is Joran referring to? Is he "trying" to earn trust or is he "trying" to tell the truth?
On March 1, 2006, FOX News aired part one of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Joran van der Sloot. The interview aired on the show "On The Record w/Greta Van Susteren." Unlike ABC News, Fox posted the entire unedited transcript on their website. Here are some exerts from the interview.
Q. "Has Aruba been affected by Natalee's disappearance?"
A. "I think it has been affected, been affected quite a lot, and that's one thing that hurts
me a lot. I mean, the Aruban people did everything, everything to try and — to try and solve
this case. They did. They sent F-16 jets from Holland over to take pictures. They've
interrogated I don't know how many people. They have dive teams from all over the world have
come to dive into the oceans and look in the oceans. They sent the whole Marines to search the
entire island.
I mean, the government, the Aruban government, even gave all the people that work for the
government a day off to go search the island. I mean, a lot has been done, and everyone just
wants to get this case solved and get it done with. That's what everybody wants."
It is interesting that during this interview Joran never talks about trying to find or locate Natalee. He always use the language that he and everyone else is trying to "solve" this case. He hesitated and repeated himself when he said "to try and." Perhaps he was going to say "to try and find her" but then chose to use the word "solve."
Q. "Is that what you want?"
A. "Of course, that's what I want. That's the one thing that will clear me, and that's the one
thing that will clear anyone else involved with it that doesn't deserve to be."
There are two reasons why a person would use the phrase "of course." Joran may be expecting us to take for granted what he is saying. However, we only believe what people tell us. If you tell me that is what you want then I will believe you. If you tell me "of course that's what I want" then I have to believe you have not told me what you want.
Some people have a habit of using this phrase. They will constantly interject it into their statement even though they are being truthful. In part one of his interview, Joran uses the phrase "of course" four times. When you consider the fact that he used the phrase "you know" 46 times and the phrase "I mean" 40 times, it would appear that he does not have the habit of using the phrase "of course."
Q. "Why did you agree to talk to us?"
A. "I agreed to talk to you because I thought it was important to hear another side of the story,
as well. I look at it in one way that, you know, there's one side of the story, there's another
side of the story, and then there's the truth. And I'm telling you the truth and everything that
happened and not just one side from the story. I'm not going to tell you I'm a good person. I'm
not going to tell you that I'm an angel or that I've done good things, no, because it's not like
that. But I'm here to tell the truth and to let people know what happened and exactly what went on."
What would your reason be for talking to the media? Most people would want the world to know that they did not harm Natalee. That they do not know where she is. Joran never makes these denials in this interview. Yes, he wants his side of the story to be told and yes we can believe he is giving us truthful information. The question is, is he withholding any information?
Q. "Interested in any of them at — at the poker table?" (Joran said that he met Natalee and her friends
at a casino.)
A. "Interested? No, not really. I was more talking — the girl that was sitting next to me,
I was — I thought she was pretty and I was talking to her. And when I went — what the point was for
going to Carlos 'n Charlie's was I wanted to actually meet up with her."
Joran answers the question with a question. This means it is a sensitive question and he is stalling for time to think about his answer. He answers with a "no" but then says "not really." People use the word "really" as an emphasis but often times it weakens the statement. It tells us Joran had some interest in one of the girls. He confirms this when he says he went to Carlos 'n Charlie's to meet her.
Q. "Did you tell Deepak that night that you had met these — these..."
A. "Yes, I told him — that's exactly — that's exactly what I told him. I told him I met a couple
of girls, and they asked if I wanted to go out. So that's — yes, that's what I plan to do."
Q. "You tell him anything else about the girls, whether or not you thought they'd be fun or they'd be,
you know, something that Deepak might want to hook up with, or Satish might want to..."
A. "Oh, no, no, no. No, no."
It appears Joran did not let Greta finish her question. He answers "that's exactly what I told him" but we do not know what that is because he did not let Greta finish her question. He repeats the phrase "that's exactly." We also have an unusual statement "So that's — yes, that's what I plan to do." The word "plan" should be in the past tense unless he is quoting what he told Deepak that night.
He answers the second question with five "no's." You would think one "no" would be sufficient. Deceptive people will try to convince you they are telling the truth.
Q. "Had you made any agreement or arrangement with Natalee at that point to leave with her or anything?"
A. "No, not at all. That came very spontaneously. She's like, 'OK, you want me to go with you?' And I was
like 'OK.' And I saw her go up to some of her friends. I don't know what she said to them. And then,
yes, then we — then we ended up leaving. The plan was to go to my house."
Notice the last part of his answer. As they are getting ready to leave the bar, Joran tells us that Natalee was leaving with him and the plan was to go to Joran's house." Nineteen questions later we find the following Q & A.
Q. "Any discussion between Carlos 'n Charlie's and the car between you and Satish or you and Natalee?'
A. "No, just between me and Natalee. We were speaking English to each other and I asked her if
she wanted to go back to her hotel and that's when she said that she wanted to — she asked
me if I -- if I had a big house or not and then — then she said — I said to her "Do you want to see
my house?" And she's like
'Yes, I want to go to your house.'"
Everything a person says has a meaning. There is a reason why a person mentions something or why he phrases it a certain way. Why does Joran tell us he and Natalee were speaking "English" to each other? He never mentions this at any other time during his interview. This is called an unusual statement that should jump out at you screaming for closer examination. Apparently it did not catch Greta's ear because she ignored the statement. Unusual statements are sometimes the most important information in the statement.
The fact that he says they were speaking English tells us there was a time when they or someone was not speaking English. I believe Joran speaks Dutch. Perhaps Natalee picked up a little Dutch while in Aruba and was trying to converse with Joran in Dutch. Maybe Joran was teaching her Dutch. Their conversations in Dutch were not going so well so they decided to start "speaking English to each other." That's one possible explanation. A more sinister explanation is that the three boys, Joran, Deepak and Satish were speaking to each other in Dutch. This means Natalee would not know what they were saying. Perhaps they were discussing their plans for the night. Because another language was being spoken by someone it causes Joran to use the word "English" in his answer. As an investigator you want to recognize this and find out what was going on.
Joran says he asked Natalee if she wanted to go back to her hotel. He then says, "that's when she said that she wanted to" but he does not finish the sentence. He then sets the stage for a discussion on going to his house. He then claims Natalee said, "Yes, I want to go to your house." There appears to be a discrepancy here in reference to going to his house. Earlier in his interview he tells us that while they are getting ready to leave the bar "the plan was to go to my house." Now as they are walking to the car he tells us that is when they decided to go to his house.
Q. "On the beach you weren't directly in front of the Marriott, you were a little bit north of
the Marriott is that right, you call it the Marriott beach but you weren't directly in front
of the hotel?"
A. "At that point, we were basically almost directly in front of the Marriott Hotel."
Q. "Did you cut through the hotel to the beach?"
A. "No, no. You didn't really cut because you're right at the — the right side of the Marriott
Hotel, all the way at the right. She didn't really cut through — through the hotel but
you were walking on the hotel property where there's beach chairs and all that stuff."
Joran uses some odd pronouns in his answer. He was asked if he and Natalee cut through the hotel to get to the beach. Instead of answering "we" or "I didn't really cut" he uses the pronoun "you." He may be using the "you" because he is talking in general terms. However, most people would use a personal pronoun. He then states that "she didn't really cut through." Where did Joran go? If he was with Natalee, then he should have used the pronoun "we." He finishes his answer using the pronoun "you" instead of "we." "You were walking on the hotel property where there's beach chairs and all that stuff." The Aruban authorities believe that Natalee and Joran never went to the beach that night. Perhaps that is what Joran is telling us by changing his pronouns. Changing pronous is an indication of deception.
Q. "What was your intention at that point to have sex with her?"
A. "That was my, yes, that was my intention, yes. That was my first intention."
If you have a "first intention," then you have to have a second intention. If you were interviewing Joran, you would want to find out what was his second intention.
Q. "So you got out of the car. Did you have sex with Natalee?"
A. "No, no, not..."
It appears Greta did not let Joran finish his answer. He answered the question with a "no, no" but then he started to say something else, "not..." Was he about to say "not at that time"? Then again maybe the "not" was his attempt to say "not-hing happened."
Q. "Other people walking on the beach?"
A. "Yes, there was — the time that I started walking the other direction there was only
one couple that I walked by because most of them were at the actual Marriott Hotel. At that
(INAUDIBLE), there was only one couple that I actually walked by."
Joran is suppose to be describing his walk on the beach with Natalee. However, three times he uses the pronoun "I" and not the pronoun "we." Did he walk past this couple alone? Where was Natalee at this time?
Q. "Did Satish pick you up in his car or his mother's car?"
A. "In Deepak's car."
Q. "So, it's the same car that dropped you off?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "Did you say 'Where's Deepak'?"
A. "Yes, that was — of course that was the first reaction when I — when I came there. I walked
over and I sat in the car and I was like, you know, 'Where's Deepak'? He said, 'Oh, he's at
home on his computer.' And that's when I, you know, I told him, you know, the girl's
still on the beach and, you know, she wanted me to stay there with her and, you know,
I want to go. I want to go home. What do you do?
And he reacted like, you know, OK (INAUDIBLE) 'Let's go, you know, let's go fast and
let's leave, you know, like, you know, not really caring about her. Let's just go and leave her there.'
And, I was like, 'OK' so (INAUDIBLE) we really went without even saying goodbye to her or
without even really seeing her and telling her at that point that we were going to go."
Joran uses the phrase "of course." It appears he wants us to take for granted that he asked "Where's Deepak?"
Six times he uses the phrase "you know." Three other times he uses it but attributes it to Satish talking. He uses the phrase 46 times in part one of his interview, so we know he probably has a habit of using that phrase. However, to use it 6 to 9 times to answer a question draws suspicion. This may be a sign of tension.
He states that Satish said "let's go fast and let's leave." Why is Satish in such a hurry? If Natalee walked off the beach and came up to the car before they left, you would think they would offer her a ride back to her hotel. Joran claimed he initially offered her a ride from the bar back to her hotel. Joran then uses the word "really" twice which weakens the statement. "Without even really seeing her and telling her at that point that we were going to go." The word "really" indicates that he did see her. Maybe she was at a distance so he used the word "really" as opposed to saying "without even seeing her."
Here are some exerts from part two of the interview which aired March 2, 2006.
Q. "Up until getting that phone call from your father, did Deepak say anything to you unusual or
anything that stands out in your mind?"
A. "No, not really."
Greta is referring to the phone call Joran received form his father the night after Natalee disappeared telling Joran there were people at his house who wanted to see him. Joran answers the question with a "no" but then he adds the phrase "not really." This weakens the denial. Chances are Deepak did say something unusual or something that stood out.
Q. "So you get the phone call from your father. Were you at the table when you got the call?"
A. "When I got the phone call? No, we were — I — we'd actually left
already, and we were going to the car to go to another casino, and that's when we got that phone call."
Q. "Where were you planning to go?"
A. "We were planning to go to, in town, the Excelsior casino there. Or not the Excelsior — the
Crystal (ph) casino there."
Q. "All right. So when you're standing at the car, did he say anything to you all? Did he ask
you about the night before? Did he discuss the night before?"
A. "No, he didn't — he didn't ask me anything."
Q. "Never mentioned it at all."
A. "Never mentioned it at all."
Q. "Do you find that unusual or not?"
A. "No."
Q. "It's just normal."
A. "Yes."
Q. "OK. So your father — so what did your father say in the phone call?"
A. "In the phone call? Yes, he called me and he said, There's people here in front of the house
looking for their daughter."
Answering a question with a question usually means the person is stalling for time to think about how to answer the question. This is a sign that the question asked was a sensitive question. Joran answers a question with a question in regards to getting a phone call from his father. Notice Joran did not wait for an answer after he asked or repeated the question. A clear sign he was stalling for time.
In the first answer we him changing his pronouns. Changing pronouns is an indication of deception. This may occur because he is making up the story and not relying on his memory.
Q. "Did you know who they meant, who the daughter was, at that point?"
A. "At the point, when I got that phone call, I was, like, you know, (DELETED) what if it's
that girl from last night, you know, the girl from the beach? That was my first reaction."
Q. "Did you actually say that to Deepak, or did you think that?"
A. "No, I thought that. And then that's when — you know, when I hung up, I said, OK, we're coming —
we're coming home. And so then I — when I hung up the phone, I was, like — I was, like, you know,
(DELETED), and I talked to Deepak and then I just told him what my dad just said on the phone. And
he was, like — he was, like, (DELETED), too. And then that's when we — that's when we made up a story
to say, you know, that we didn't — that we dropped her off at the Holiday Inn."
In the last sentence, Joran says they made up a story to say "that we didn't." However, he does not finish his thought. He then changes his statement and says "that we dropped her off at the Holiday Inn." We have to wonder what he was thinking when he made the statement "that we didn't." It could be something as simple as "that we didn't see her."
Q. "OK, and I think there's a declaration, and correct me if I'm wrong, of the 13th of June.
It's in Dutch and I've seen a translation. I can't read Dutch. But I think that it says that
you say that Deepak murdered Natalee is that wrong?"
A. "No, that's not. I never said anything like that."
Greta makes the statement that Joran said that Deepak murdered Natalee. She then asks, "Is that wrong?" Joran answers, "No, that's not." He never finishes the sentence. He is saying that her comment is not wrong? This means he did say that Deepak murdered Natalee despite his claim "I never said anything like that."
Q. "What was it like for you in jail?"
A. "It wasn't, I mean, I mean they treated me really well there when I was there. I mean all the
people there were great. Also, you know, the security guards and everyone was really, really
supportive, really good but, I mean of course it's not fun to be in jail I mean.......And this
is something it's — everyone wants to find out what happened and I think people need to find
out what happened for everyone's sake, you know, just to get this closed with and get this
moved on with. And I mean I don't care if someone thinks badly of me now. I mean that's really
— I really don't care about that anymore."
Again Joran does not state that we need to find Natalee. He never mentions her name. He says that everyone needs to find out what happened "just to get this closed with and get this moved on with" as opposed to finding out what happened to Natalee.
Here are some exerts from part three of the interview which aired March 3, 2006.
Q. "Beth Holloway — what's your thought feeling about Natalee's mother?"
A. "........I mean, I think the actions they're taking are definitely wrong, The things that
they are doing from outside of (INAUDIBLE) thinking I had something to do with them, that's
— I don't blame them for that at all. I mean, like I said, if I was — if I was looking at this
from the outside, I'd think I had something to do with it because, you know, a lot of stuff
happened that's just weird, that just doesn't make sense, either. But what is important is that
the actions, the other actions they're taking, I think, are just wrong. I don't agree with them at all."
Joran gives a lengthy answer to this question. He starts off saying he doesn't "think badly" of Beth Holloway. He believes though "the actions she's taking are wrong." He said he was willing to talk to her but then his lawyers and parents told him not to. He then finishes his answer by stating that "a lot of stuff happened that's just weird, that just doesn't make sense." In talking about the weird sutff that happened, Joran is referring to himself. He said, "If I was looking at this from the outside, I'd think I had something to do with it because, you know, a lot of stuff happened that's just weird, that just doesn't make sense, either." We have to wonder what weird stuff is he talking about.
Q. "And your dreams are, at this point, to do what?"
A. "I'm studying international business management at my school. And yes, my dreams are just to finish
that study, and you know, go on with my life. And I just hope this get solved, for everyone, for
everyone involved. For everyone's sake, I really hope that this get solved. And like I said, I mean,
I'll use every second of the time that I get to talk. I mean, just if anyone knows anything, just please,
please go forward to the police and tell them everything that you know. I mean, it's just so important."
Again he uses the language that he hopes this case will "get solved." Yes, that is something that all of us want. However, we also want to know what happened to Natalee. Joran never states this. He never personalizes it by using her name. He continues to use impersonal language of solving the case.
Q. "What's your theory? What do you think happened?"
A. "I mean, I'm not going to — I mean, I have 20 of my own theories. I mean, I've thought so many things
that could have happened. I mean — but I'm not going to — all people have done is speculate. That's all
people have done, and that's wrong. I mean, so I'm not going to go on and speculate and say what I think
happened, either."
This is weak. He has 20 theories but he is not going to share them with us. Moat people have a theory as to what happened and are willing to share it. No one is asking him to name names. Why not say, "I think she met someone on the beach after I left who might have kidnapped her"? Or, "Maybe she went for a swim and drowned"?
Q. "Think it's going to be solved?"
A. "I think it'll be solved. I think..."
Q. "Why?"
Q. "Because there's — there's — I mean, it has to be solved, for everyone involved. I think Aruba is doing
everything they can to solve it, and I think it will be solved. I really believe deep down inside that
it'll be solved."
It appears Greta cut Joran off with his first answer. He was about to tell us something and she did not let him. We can consider this lost information.
As to why he thinks it will be solved he shows some deception. Deceptive people will try to convince you they are telling the truth. Joran does this with words like "I really believe" and "deep down inside." I think a lot of people would answer this by saying something like "People just don't disappear that's why I believe it will be solved." Joran does not state this because that would start to personalize it by using words like "people" and "disappear." Instead, he uses generic language stating that "it will be solved." Yes, he is using the same language Greta used but he still keeps it impersonal.
Q. "Is Natalee dead or alive?"
A. "I don't know. I mean, there's nothing..."
Q. "What do you think?"
A. "There's no evidence at all to prove anything, not to say that she's alive and not to say that
something happened to her. I mean, deep down — deep down inside, I don't think — I don't think
that she's alive anymore. But I mean, there's every — anything — anything could have happened.
Anything could have happened. I mean, I really don't know."
Order is important. There is a reason why one thing is mentioned before another. Look at Greta's question, "Is Natalee dead or alive?" There is a reason why she did not say "alive or dead." By mentioning "dead" first, it tells us that Greta thinks Natalee is not alive.
Because of the question, Joran is forced to talk about Natalee using the pronoun "she." He tells us there is no evidence to prove that she is alive but he refuses to use the word "dead." Instead he says, "...and not to say that something happened to her." We should wonder why he does not use the word "dead."
He tells us that he does not think "that she's alive anymore." Everything a person says has a meaning. Why add the word "anymore"? It is not needed for us the readers of his statement. But for some reason he needed to put it in there.
It sounds like in the last part of his answer he wanted to say that there is always a chance she could be alive. But, he does not say that. He stutters, he repeats himself and states that "anything could have happened." Even if you believed she was dead, why not say there is a chance she is alive? Stranger things have happened. Unless, of course, you knew she was dead.
Q. "Other than the lie about the Holiday Inn and the two guards (INAUDIBLE), did you lie to the
police at all?"
A. "That's what I said to you about that, that Deepak Kalpoe and Satish dropped me off at my
house. That's (INAUDIBLE)"
Q. "So two lies, essentially."
A. "Yes."
Q. "Any other lies?"
A. "Any other lies? No."
Q. "Know anything else about this?"
A. "No."
Q. "Nothing about what happened to Natalee?"
A. "No."
These are the last five questions of the interview. Joran does not answer the first question "Did you lie to the police at all?" He gave an answer but it did not answer the question. This means he is withholding information.
He answers the second question with a "yes" but that was easy for him to do. Greta did not ask him "Did you only tell two lies?" She used the word "essentially." What Joran is saying is "Yes, I essentially only told two lies." That leaves the possibility he told other lies. Perhaps they were just fibs.
Greta then narrows it down and asks him "Any other lies?" Joran then answers the question with a question. He does it in a classic way by repeating the question. Notice he did not wait for Greta to answer his question. This is a clear indication he was asked a sensitive question and was stalling for time to think about how to answer it.
Greta finishes the interview by asking him if he knew what happened to Natalee. Joran answers with a "no" but again this is easy for him to do because of the way Greta worded the question. She used the word "nothing" which is a negative word. She is essentially telling him how to answer the question.
Conclusion
Here is a summary of the things Joran stated in his two interviews.
- He told us we should not believe what he says.
- He constantly talks about solving this case as opposed to finding Natalee.
- He tells us that he planned to have sex with Natalee but didn't because he did not have a condom.
- He used changing pronouns which is an indication of deception.
- He made an unusual statement when he said "We were speaking English to each other."
- He told us that weird stuff happened.
- He won't tell us what he thinks happened to Natalee.
- When asked if he told the police any other lies, first he did not answer the question, then he answered the question with a question.
There is no doubt that Joran Van der Sloot has withheld information. He has not told us everything that happened that night and he has shown several signs of being deceptive. English may not be his first language and may explain why some of his answers appear to be deceptive. Still, he gave numerous answers that need to be explored. Perhaps the biggest thing that is missing from his statements is a denial. Half the world probably thinks he had something to do with Natalee's disappearance. Even Joran himself said that if he were in someone else's shoes he would view himself as a suspect. Yet, from what I have read, he never denies causing harm to Natalee. He never states, "I did not kill her" or "I did not harm her" or "I do not know what happened to her." This is how a guilty person acts because people do not want to tell a lie. So, they avoid making these kind of statements / denials. His interviewers helped him out because from what I have seen they never asked him these questions.