This is a partial transcript from "On the Record," August 3, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Just hours ago, Joran van der Sloot (search) and Deepak Kalpoe (search) were in court. Their lawyers argued that the FBI should not have full access to documents or evidence in the Natalee Holloway (search) case. We caught up with Joran van der Sloot's lawyer outside the courthouse.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

In terms of information that the prosecution is obliged to turn over to you, are you satisfied everything's been turned over to you that should be turned over?

ANTONIO CARLO, JORAN VAN DER SLOOT'S ATTORNEY: No. Today, also, we had a summary proceeding, which was also heard by the judge today, where we complained formally that, in our opinion, the defense is not getting full and/or timely access to the documentation in the case. The judge is going to decide on our complaint, so we are awaiting the response of the judge, the decision of the judge.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you expect that decision to come today, with the issue of the FBI, as to whether or not the prosecution is turning over everything it should to you?

CARLO: No, again, the issue of the FBI intervention is a separate issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: Right.

CARLO: This was a separate proceeding.

VAN SUSTEREN: But do you expect both decisions this afternoon?

CARLO: This afternoon or early tomorrow morning. The judge did not give an indication as to when he was going to render his decision, but soon.

VAN SUSTEREN: Between now and September 4, what do you do for your client strategically as you await September 4?

CARLO: OK. Of course, you know, we are not going to go into detail and disclose what our strategy is going to be. But right now, our role and our duty is to protect and defend the rights of our clients, and that is what we propose to do and, you know, advise and assist our client in all ways necessary.

VAN SUSTEREN: Clients come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, easy to get along with, easy to work with. Is there a way to describe this client and your working relationship with him?

CARLO: He is a nice guy. He is a nice guy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: The suspects were not required to show up in court today. We saw Joran van der Sloot enter the courthouse through the back door in custody, in handcuffs, and Deepak Kalpoe walked through the front door with his lawyer, but Satish Kalpoe did not attend. Earlier today, we spoke with Satish's lawyer, David Kock, and talked to him about how the prosecutor is handling the case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

She told me today — I mean, and granted, it was not the most comfortable of settings, but as she walked out of the courthouse and I stuck a mike in her face, basically, I asked her if she was confident of her case, and she said, yes, indeed, she was confident. Do you get the sense she's confident, or do you just think that's sort of grandstanding by a prosecutor leaving a courtroom?

DAVID KOCK, SATISH KALPOE'S ATTORNEY: I don't think the prosecutor would have taken this action and then come out of the court and saying she's not confident. Although by that, I don't mean to say that she's not but she just says she is. It's hard for me to judge what her opinion is. From what I heard her present today, I think she believes that she has acted correctly. I don't think she thinks otherwise and presents it in a different way. We just don't share her opinion. But you know we are free to do that, too.

VAN SUSTEREN: What does their case consist of? We know that it consists of interrogations, and from the interrogations, the best that we can conclude on the outside is that there are inconsistent statements internally, that Joran's made different statements on different occasions. We know there's no body suggesting a murder. We know that no one knows where Natalee is. Is there any forensic evidence or any physical evidence you've been presented with to suggest that Natalee is not alive?

KOCK: Not at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any forensic evidence you've been presented with to show that Joran van der Sloot knows where she is?

KOCK: Not evidence. I think that this is a very logical assumption.

VAN SUSTEREN: But evidence?

KOCK: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any evidence — any physical evidence — to tie your client to Natalee Holloway?

KOCK: Of course, they were in the car priorly. But you're talking after that, I assume?

VAN SUSTEREN: Right.

KOCK: Not at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any physical evidence to tie your client's brother to Natalee, other than being in the car?

KOCK: Not that I know of.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any physical evidence to suggest a crime?

KOCK: Physical evidence? Not that I know of.

VAN SUSTEREN: Based on your conversations with the prosecution and what the prosecution turned over to you, at best you can say only that Natalee Holloway isn't here in front of us, or at least, we don't know where, I guess.

KOCK: Correct. And then we make certain assumptions.

VAN SUSTEREN: But assumptions aren't evidence, necessarily. I mean, we might make assumptions, but I take it that assumptions are not evidence in an Aruban court.

KOCK: No. They are sufficient to trigger an investigation. They are sufficient to detain suspects. But they're not sufficient to sentence someone.

VAN SUSTEREN: If you're a betting man, do you expect on September 4, the state of the evidence, that Joran van der Sloot goes home?

KOCK: I would prefer not to give an answer on that question. I think because of all that's happening in this case, it's not going to be such an easy decision either to let him go or to keep him.

VAN SUSTEREN: But usually, you would detain someone, I suspect, in an investigation if there's evidence to support that the person's involved in a crime. So you at least need some evidence of a crime and some evidence of a connection of the person to the crime.

KOCK: Yes, you need suspicion, according to our laws. The evidence doesn't have to be hard evidence in this phase of the investigation.

VAN SUSTEREN: So it's enough that you are the last person with a missing person, so we're suspicious of you.

KOCK: If you can sum it up, it's like that.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of working with your client — I've said this to other defense lawyers — clients come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, all different kinds. How do you describe your client?

KOCK: I describe him — he's a very young boy, you know, soft-spoken. And I have no reasons to doubt in what he's telling me up to now. So you know, I think he's going to come — as it stands today — that he's going to be all right.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you spoken to his brother at all or had any interaction with his brother?

KOCK: Not interaction. I mean, today I met him at court, you know? I tried to keep things separately, and I try not to be involved with other parties.

VAN SUSTEREN: How come Satish wasn't here today? Deepak was there, and Joran obviously was there. He was brought in custody. But how come your client didn't show up?

KOCK: It was not required for him to show up today. It was a total technical issue, judicial issue. He didn't have any answers to give. So you know, we said, Why let him go through this today? There was no need, in our opinion.

VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, we sort of expected either both brothers not to show up or both brothers to show up. So we sort of wondered why one did and one didn't.

KOCK: I think every attorney has a different strategy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Watch "On the Record" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc., which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.