This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," November 28, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: The managing editor of the El Diario newspaper in Aruba, Jossy Mansur, spoke with us earlier. Jossy gives us his take on the so-called "new evidence." Is it new, or just a new angle on old information?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: What is your theory on what happened based on any corroborative of evidence?

JOSSY MANSUR, EL DIARIO: The only thing I can say, and I have said this before, is that they only facts in this case that we know (INAUDIBLE), and from that moment on, nobody ever heard anything about her anymore except for what these three suspects have been telling us.

No one else has ever come forward to say anything, that they saw her, or were with her, or whatever related to her after that incident. So that leads me to believe that the three suspects know what happened to her.

VAN SUSTEREN: Unless they left her on the beach and they went home, and she walked that half a mile to her—

 MANSUR: No, we have to rule that out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why? How can you rule it out?

MANSUR: We have to rule it out because, for one, when Joran went with the four police officers to the beach because he told them that he had an idea where Deepak buried the girl, he told them, I think that Deepak walked back to the beach where the girl was sleeping and raped and murdered her.

That is in the transcripts of the police interrogation. How can they have left her there when he is accusing Deepak of this?

VAN SUSTEREN: Unless he and Deepak turned on each other and either made up stories or told the truth. I do not know.

MANSUR: In that sense, you also have to remember what Deepak told Joran in the back of the police car coming from the prison—

VAN SUSTEREN: Which was?

MANSUR: He told him if they find the girl, you are looking at 15 years in prison. What would lead him to say that? He didn't know they were taping him.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you seen the transcript?

MANSUR: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: So there is no doubt Deepak said that in the back of the van?

MANSUR: There is no doubt. (INAUDIBLE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Has Joran's shoes ever been found? I know there is a discussion that he had a missing shoe. What's the story on that.

MANSUR: No, we haven't heard anything more about the shoes, that they were found or not found. I do not think they were found.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that insignificant fact in this investigation?

MANSUR: It may be significant in the sense that you would have to look very closely at to how he got home that night. He could not have walked if he left his shoes. So somebody picked him up. Who picked him up?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us live in Connecticut is Joe Tacopina, lawyer for Joran Van Der Sloot. Nice to see you, Joe.

JOE TACOPINA, JORAN VAN DER SLOOT'S ATTORNEY: Hi, Greta. But, that gets my blood boiling, and I didn't get to say a word yet.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why is your blood boiling?

TACOPINA: Hearing him, someone that has been implicated in fabricating evidence in this case deciding what is credible and not credible evidence makes me laugh a little bit.

But, moreover, Greta, the two things he said are so inaccurate. First of all, that initial statement that was rumored to be out there and that actually made its way into one police report—

VAN SUSTEREN: Which statement?

TACOPINA: The statement that he is saying that Joran had any knowledge about Deepak or Satish Kalpoe doing anything to her. Absolutely not true. The cops have moved off that. They've redacted that. That is absolutely inaccurate, and that has never been said by Joran. If that were said, we wouldn't have had him released.

Number two, and most importantly, he starts citing these tapes that were in the back of the police car, and we talked about this last night for a nano second, but these are those tapes they set the boys up after three months incarceration, basically told them, the other guy pointed the finger at you—which wasn't true.

And they throw them all into a police car and recorded their conversations in hopes that they would get some bombshell evidence of a crime. What they got was clear evidence of Joran Van Der Sloot's innocence on that tape, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have the same sense that shows innocence of Deepak and Satish on that tape that you say shows Joran's innocence on the tape.

TACOPINA: In all fairness, my focus was on Joran's statements in the context of some of the Kalpoe's statements.

I do not see anything on the tape that shows that they had anything knowledge of what happened either, quite frankly. But Joran's statements are clearly statement of lack of knowledge.

At two points he leaves open the possibility that Natalee is still alive. He repeatedly said that, and they do not know they are being recorded.

VAN SUSTEREN: You have answered Jossy. Let me ask you about the new and incriminating evidence, that is the statement of the prosecutor. And Joran's lawyer has gotten 15 pages—a mysterious 15 pages. Do you have any idea what is in them?

TACOPINA: Yes, I do.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything new?

TACOPINA: Not for my eyes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are there new wiretaps?

TACOPINA: There are new recordings.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you mean by new recordings?

TACOPINA: They placed bugs in the homes of the suspects at different times. This is what I hate to do to you, but I cannot get into the specifics. What I will say is this—there are no wiretap conversations that postdate 2005. There is no evidence against Joran, and no incriminating evidence.

VAN SUSTEREN: Joe, are there new recordings of any of the three since April 2007?

TACOPINA: Again, I am going to take a pass on that, because the rules right now that are in place—I do not want to violate them. I want cooperation, and I want to be able to share our information with the authorities.

VAN SUSTEREN: Then answer it this way—do you at least know that answer?

TACOPINA: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: I am not going to ask you the incriminating question because you are a defense lawyer, and I know your answer. How is your client doing in jail?

TACOPINA: He is actually doing quite well, considering the conditions he is held under. He is a mentally tough kid. He is now 19, was 17 at the time. This has advanced him years by way of really giving him a life's lesson.

And, certainly, he has been through this before. We are actually going to court tomorrow for a hearing to reduce the restrictions. He is in a cage with no reading material. He cannot read the Bible, he can't read a book. He can't say hi to his parents, his brother can't visit him—no outside contact.

That serves absolutely no investigatory person. What that is supposed to do is try to break a boy to get him to say something that may not be true. It will not happen, here, but that is the condition he is living under.

VAN SUSTEREN: we have 10 seconds left—do you have plans to go to Aruba or not? And if you do have plans, when are you going?

TACOPINA: I'll be there next week with the whole team.

VAN SUSTEREN: How long will you be there?

TACOPINA: As long as it takes to get what we need to get done, done. How's that?

VAN SUSTEREN: We will do a phone interview when you get there. Make sure you give us your phone number.

TACOPINA: Sure, OK.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Joe, thank you.

TACOPINA: Bye, Greta.