This is a partial transcript from "On the Record," August 23, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Deepak and Satish Kalpoe (search) were arrested on June 9 in the connection with the Natalee Holloway (search) disappearance, then they were released on July 4. They are free men tonight, but both are still considered suspects.

Earlier this evening, we spoke with Satish Kalpoe's lawyer, David Kock.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

David, today the court ruled what? And on what particular motion?

DAVID KOCK, SATISH KALPOE'S ATTORNEY: Well, Mr. Van der Sloot's attorneys stated that they were not getting the documents as fast as they should be or not getting all the documents. And they also asked to get a copy of all the videotape interrogations of all the three suspects. The D.A. during the trial stated that they are giving all the documents, so the judge did not grant that. The judge stated that everything should be, of course, made available to Mr. Van der Sloot, and since the videotapes of interrogations are also part of the dossier, they also have to be now handed over to Van der Sloot.

VAN SUSTEREN: David, did your client, Satish Kalpoe — did he join in this motion or have a separate motion, or does this motion about documents and videotapes only relate to Joran van der Sloot?

KOCK: No, it was only submitted by Van der Sloot. We were not of the opinion that the documents were being with held for Satish Kalpoe, I mean, for us. At the moment, the videotapes don't play such an important part. So that's why we did not submit such a motion. But I understood — I already spoke also with the D.A., and in fair process, that should be made available also to us, just, you know, to treat everybody equally.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have all the text messages or any wiretap transcripts that may exist?

KOCK: Up to now, we have the ones that are relevant. So that's why we are actually comfortable with how the investigation is at this moment and how it's developing.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any text message which indicates when Satish and Deepak were home? Is there any way to figure that out?

KOCK: Yes. There are Internet records that show the time that Deepak got home. Of course, we do not have any for Satish because he went home, as you know, and went to his bedroom, went to sleep in his bedroom. There's no computer. He wasn't either on the phone anymore. But his brother, Deepak, was. And for that, we already have the records. And that is also what we indicated during the hearing of the so-called gardener, when he stated that at a certain time, he saw the three there, whereas we had concrete proof that that was just not possible.

VAN SUSTEREN: David, at what point was Deepak on the Internet? And what was the time that the gardener claims that he saw the three?

KOCK: There are records to indicate at around 2:00 o'clock already, Deepak is back on the Internet, and from there on up to almost 3:00 o'clock, while the gardener said that at 2:30 — that he's so convinced that at 2:30, he saw the three of them next to the racquet club. So it's just physically, that's impossible.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. As best as I can piece together, David, the evidence is, is that your client, Satish, is with Deepak. They're brothers. They live together. So presumably, your client was home, as well, at 2:00 o'clock. Is that consistent with what your evidence is?

KOCK: Yes, I think that's a very logical assumption also, no?

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any evidence, David, cell records or Internet records or text messages, to place Joran van der Sloot any particular place at any particular time?

KOCK: No. I mean, there are the phone records of, you know, when he called Deepak, as you know, around 2:40, and then afterwards, a little bit after 3 o'clock. And there has been some triangulation to indicate where he was. So that is consistent with the area where he was supposed to be. So in that aspect, that is also covered. So you know, the story matches the facts, as it stands right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So your client, 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock, is on the Internet at home. I've been in his room. I've seen the computer, or at least where it was. And he gets phone calls at 2:40 and 3 a.m. from Joran. Where do the cell records place the phone that Joran is using at 2:40 and 3 o'clock in the morning?

KOCK: Well, there's not an exact pinpoint indication, but the general area is the area here in north in Palm Beach of the hotel.

VAN SUSTEREN: So it looks like he's not home at that hour, but someplace near the Marriott, is that right?

KOCK: That is correct. He is in this neighborhood.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any explanation as to how he got from the hotel to his home?

KOCK: No, other than what my client stated that he heard or was told by Joran, is that he went home walking. But you know, we don't have any way to verify it. As I indicated in the past, on the path from here to his house, there are certain banks, gas stations, et cetera, that have video cameras that are filming the street. But they just keep them for a couple of days. So by the time the police went there to ask to get these videotapes, they were already wiped out. So you know, we cannot confirm it by any other means.

VAN SUSTEREN: David, I take it your client drops Joran and Natalee off. What time does he place the drop-off?

KOCK: Look, he states that he gets home around 1:50, so it should be between 5 and 10 minutes. You know, at that time of night, there's not much traffic, so it would only take between 5 to 10 minutes for him to get home from this area.

VAN SUSTEREN: David, is there any legal evidence of a murder any place?

KOCK: Not at all, Greta. At this moment, there is no hard evidence, just logical deductions. You know, somebody is missing, doesn't show up, and the last person that supposedly was with her cannot give her a reasonable explanation of what happened. But that's it.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is it that the phone call at 2:40 in the morning between Joran and your client was about? What were they talking about?

KOCK: Of course, that was not with my client. But my client says that what he was saying was that he was walking home, that he left the girl on the beach and that he's walking home. And afterwards, the call after 3:00 o'clock was to actually call in and say that he got home. So you know, if you look at the distance that it would take you to walk, that also concurs a little bit with the elapsed time between the two phone calls.

VAN SUSTEREN: Coming up: Satish Kalpoe's lawyer will tell us where they took Natalee Holloway after they left Carlos and Charlie's, who they met up with and what happened in the back seat of the car.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Natalee Holloway was seen leaving an Aruba bar with Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe. Satish's lawyer, David Kock, gave us a step-by-step description of what happened that night after they left the bar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Do you know if Joran made any statements at any time, even after that night, to either Deepak or your client about what happened to Natalee, about leaving Natalee, any information at all?

KOCK: No, not any more additional information. That was not made available to my client. They didn't talk about it. First, they just trusted their friend, you know, as a lot of times young friends do. You know, they totally trusted their friend said. They didn't have a reason to doubt what he was saying. Of course, now it might sound otherwise.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did Satish, your client, meet with Paul van der Sloot and Deepak and Joran?

KOCK: Yes — let's say, not that it was a meeting, no. I mean, these are friends that visited the house of Joran and the father, so it wasn't like a meeting was arranged and they just came for that meeting. They just were there, spoke with the father, like also happened before May 30.

VAN SUSTEREN: But after May 30, after Natalee disappeared, did they meet with Paul? And did Paul give them any advice or give them any information about the investigation?

KOCK: Yes. When they were, after that day, at the house, on one occasion, you know, the father explained to them how a criminal procedure would be, but that was, according to my client, the only scope of that encounter, if one might call it like that.

VAN SUSTEREN: How did your client describe what happened when they left Carlos and Charlie's? What did he say happened when they departed?

KOCK: Oh, you know, that when they left the place going towards their car, that Joran showed up with that girl, that the girl was going to drive with them in the car, that they drove around. But first, they also met a couple of friends of the disappeared girl, who told her, why doesn't she get out of the car, and she said, no, that she was going to drive around. They drove around, drove to the lighthouse, and then coming back towards the high-rises, but Joran asked to be dropped here, next to the Marriott, and that the two of them got out of the car and that they left. And for them, that was the end of it.

VAN SUSTEREN: And your client then went home as a passenger in his brother, Deepak's, car, is that what he said?

KOCK: Correct. Correct. That is the case.

VAN SUSTEREN: Deepak's car has been torn apart, looking for any information possible. Is there anything that was — any DNA that was taken out of that car, in any — you know, whether it's saliva or hair, anything at all?

KOCK: No, nothing was found in the car that was relevant to the case. Just remember, if they found, for example, a hair of the disappeared girl in the car, it would still not mean anything because she was in the car. But they didn't find anything that gave an indication that a foul play or that something went wrong in the car, so...

VAN SUSTEREN: What was going on in the car as they were driving around? Was there some sort of sexual activity between Joran and Natalee?

KOCK: Well, my client indicated, you know, that they were kissing, et cetera, and that it was impolite for him to be turning and looking back, so, you know? That is the only thing that he saw.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was it getting out of hand at all? Was it getting rough at all or not?

KOCK: No, no, not that he noticed any, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about drugs and alcohol? Was there any — has your client mentioned whether or not either Joran or Natalee or both seemed under the influence?

KOCK: No. Look, they had been drinking, both of those two. I mean, you know, she was lying on the bar, and jelly shots were being drunk from her navel. They were drinking. I mean, that's a fact. But according to my client, not that, you know, they were stupidly drunk.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you say they drove around and they met up with some of Natalee's friends, do you know where that was?

KOCK: That was at the intersection next to the bus terminal. I think that group of — I don't know if I can call them classmates or travel mates, in any case — we assume that they were standing there to await taxis to go — to get back to the hotel.

VAN SUSTEREN: Any idea who they were, their names?

KOCK: No. No. I mean, they are in the file, but not that I know on the top of my head. And we didn't find it necessary to really go too much into that.

They have stated that. I mean, they have stated that, you know? They asked her to get out, and that she said no, that she was going to stay in the car and drive home — back with Joran, so...

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the fact that, apparently, on this June 13 declaration, Joran says — at least, we're told — that Deepak raped and murdered — I think raped and buried, or something like that, Natalee? Do you know anything about that?

KOCK: Yes. No, that was a statement that was given. I think, though, it's — because I saw it, too, that it appeared here in the newspaper. But I think you have to put it into context, that that was just one of the stories that Joran told, and that afterwards, he has changed his story again.

It wasn't a statement that he signed, it was something that the police said that he declared during a conversation, that he said, yes, something must have gone wrong with the girl. And then when they asked him, What do you think, and he says, Well, I think maybe after I got — because that was at a time when he was stating that Deepak came and picked him up here and dropped him at home, which was also impossible because of the records afterwards, but at that time, he did not know that.

So he came up with that story that Deepak picked him up, dropped him at home, and he assumed that something went wrong, so that maybe, Deepak, knowing that the girl was here lying on the beach, came back and then did something to the girl and then bury her, no? But yes, I don't know if that was a story told, you know, as a joke, if it was maybe speaking as in a third person type of situation. I mean, but what we know is that afterwards, his statements have changed, so, you know? We don't have to only focus on that one.

VAN SUSTEREN: David, thank you very much. I hope you'll come back as the case progresses. Thank you.

KOCK: OK. You're welcome. Take care, Greta.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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.