This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," November 26, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Breaking news from Aruba, Joran van der Sloot ordered to stay behind bars for at least eight more days. Now, the Kalpoe brothers already got the same news last week. Now, all three suspects were re-arrested. Why? The prosecutor has now charged all three with voluntary manslaughter of Natalee Holloway. We're here live in Aruba. We're going to bring you all of the latest.

So what is this new incriminating evidence? Satish Kalpoe's lawyer, David Kock, has it in his hand.


VAN SUSTEREN: Is this the new evidence right there, that right there? Can you pick it up and just show it -- so I can show it...

DAVID KOCK, ATTORNEY FOR SATISH KALPOE: I can show you, but I can't show you the (INAUDIBLE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Right. Right. But that's what it is.

KOCK: Yes, that's what it is. It's 12 pages summarized. And the other documents are just supporting documents.

VAN SUSTEREN: So 12 pages.


VAN SUSTEREN: Now, we're going to bring much more of that later.

So why have the three men been re-arrested now? Hans Mos is the new chief prosecutor in Aruba. We just spoke to him.


VAN SUSTEREN: So you've been here since May. So you got the Natalee Holloway case in your lap, so to speak?

HANS MOS, ARUBA'S CHIEF PROSECUTOR: Yes, yes. That was part of the heritage of the -- my -- of Karin Janssen, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you talk to Karin Janssen when you -- when you took this job? Did you two sit down and...

MOS: Yes, I did.

VAN SUSTEREN: And was this one of the cases she briefed you on?

MOS: No, she did not. I didn't talk to her personally. We talked to each other on the phone, and she, of course, told me that this case was going on here.

VAN SUSTEREN: Before you took the job in May, were you aware of the Natalee Holloway case? Did that made a lot of, sort of -- got a lot of attention in Holland?

MOS: We saw the same as all the American spectators saw on American television. We saw the same on Dutch television, of course, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Since you've been here, you've actually sort of surprised all of us when a press release came out saying that there had been new evidence that has led to the arrests. How do you define new evidence?

MOS: New evidence is evidence that we didn't have before. As simple as that.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. And does it have to be of a compelling nature? Or can -- I mean, does it have to be -- is it sort of damning evidence, like, evidence that would make a prosecutor think, Oh, my God, you know, now I know -- now I've got the goods?

MOS: Depends on the case and depends how far you came in the past. You know that the evidence in murder cases could hang up to just one hair of a suspect. And that is just a very small piece of evidence, but it's very important. And what we gave to the judge is evidence, and it was enough to arrest these guys again after two years, after they had been freed by the court in Curacao. So the judge weighed this evidence. And of course, when you arrest a person two years later, after he's been freed, you have to have some serious stuff. And that's exactly what we handed over to the judge.

VAN SUSTEREN: In your press release, you said a decision would be made by the end of the year whether to prosecute not. Why did you set that timetable? Is that just your personal timetable, or does the law require you, in a certain amount of time?

MOS: That was going (ph) to be a personal timetable. The two brothers who were involved in the case asked the court to end their case, to give my organization, who's prosecuting this case, the order to stop this case because there was no new evidence. We didn't do anything anymore, was what they said to the court, and this case had to be stopped. They had the legal possibility to ask the court to take their position.

We convinced the judge during that hearing that we were on the job and we were trying to solve this case as best as we could, and there was a team coming from the Netherlands -- (INAUDIBLE) came from the Netherlands who did new findings. And of course, we said to ourselves, Can we prolong this case until -- over years? That is not possible. That is not possible under the European treaty, which says that you have to try a case within a reasonable time, and that time usually stands for two years.

These two years already have passed. So you have to be busy on a case which is important enough to go over that period of two years. And then we said, We have to set ourselves a time limit within we have to take a decision in this case, whether we will take it to court or not or we'll dismiss it. And we set ourselves this time limit of the 31st of December. Then we will take the decision ultimately to charge these three suspects or dismiss the case.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have to pick them up to make that decision?

MOS: That's a good question. Yes, we thought we did because there was new evidence gained after the moment that they were released, which was two years ago. And it's quite a lot of evidence, at least a lot of material, and there's a lot of it is evidence, and the evidence is just material, but they have to be confronted with that because they were never confronted with those findings.

We progress in this investigation quite a lot, and they didn't -- don't even know what we got in the meantime. So we had to confront them with it. They are suspects, each of them, and they are witnesses against the other, possible. So we have to question them.

And what we think is very important, at least the Dutch suspect, instead of the two Surinams, and his father, who was one way or another involved in this case, has said in interviews that they are willing to talk. They are willing to disclose what happened in the past at a time set by them. And we think it is very important that this is the time to disclose this information to the public and to us because their point of view is, their son or this suspect, this Dutch suspect, didn't do anything, but he has information and he doesn't give it. We think that's unthinkable.

If we have this information we have right now, then he should disclose this information to us. The same counts for the other two suspects, who also have said, at least one of them, that he will disclose it in due time, that he is not involved. Well, let him disclose it because we are only seeking the truth, what happened. That's what we are aiming for. And if this information given by them shows that they are not involved, then they will not be prosecuted. But we don't think that that's the case.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you ask them voluntarily to come forward and say, Give us that information? And did they refuse, and thus you are using the system, as you're lawfully able to, and pick them up? I mean, did you go say, Come in here voluntarily and talk, so we don't have to arrest you?

MOS: Their attitude during certain investigations, moments we had during the last few months, was thus that we didn't have any idea that they will probably come to our police station and talk to us. So we didn't have any confidence in that. And we thought, given the evidence we have and given the suspicion they are under, being involved in the disappearance and in the killing of a girl, that you cannot do this just by asking them to come to the police station and talk to us. We want to interrogate them, as they should be, and so as it has to be done. And that's exactly what we're doing right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: In your press release, it says "voluntary manslaughter." What is voluntary manslaughter?

MOS: Voluntary manslaughter under Aruban law is the situation that you kill a person with intent, and the question is if it is premeditated intent, which should be murder -- we scratch (ph) through the murder suspicion because we don't have any evidence of that, there is premeditation on the killing of this girl.

But if you, for example, take an axe with the intention to just hit a person to make him suffer and have pain, but you hit the axe on the head with force, then you should take into account that this person can be killed within that action. That's a risk you take. And that was what we mean with voluntary manslaughter.

VAN SUSTEREN: Meaning that you took an action that a reasonable person would -- could assume would cause death.

MOS: Exactly.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's not just sort of where you back out of a driveway and you run over somebody.


MOS: That would be involuntary manslaughter, and that's not what we intend (ph) for.

VAN SUSTEREN: Does your new evidence -- there are different types of murder, obviously, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, and then there's murder. Does your new evidence suggest voluntary manslaughter?

MOS: Otherwise, we wouldn't have put it on the list of suspicions.

VAN SUSTEREN: It seems to me that your new evidence would have to fall into a number of categories. One would be inconsistencies, would be new evidence, if there's inconsistencies between the three. Another could be testimonial, somebody has said something. And you could have physical evidence that you could come up with, whether it's forensic evidence from a computer or a body or whatever. Can you tell me what category the new evidence is in?

MOS: No, I cannot. I told you in the past that these interrogations and the fact that these suspects are under restrictions and are not allowed to discuss anything of what has been said to them and presented to them with other people than their lawyers. So they can only talk to their lawyers. We don't want them to make up new preconcerted or concerted statements, as have been the case in the past. We have these nice concerted statements of these suspects. We don't want that anymore. We want their story based on the evidence we present to them. And so that's the reason why I'm not going to disclose it to you because they might learn that through their lawyers, which we don't want to.

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm confused. So you cannot tell me whether it's physical evidence, this new evidence, or it's testimonial??

MOS: I'm not going to tell you that.


MOS: It's all in the interests of the investigation. You know this investigation has been going on for a long time. People ask me, Is it a desperate last try of the public prosecutor's office? We are not desperate. And yes, it may be a last try in solving this case, which we are determined to do and which we're trying to do as best as we can. But give us the time and the peace to do this under this law system as well as we can.

These restrictions go with trying to do it as best as we can. And I know it's very bad for the American public, any public, because anyone wants to know what's going on, and we cannot disclose it at this time.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, and you know, quite frankly, we don't want to hurt the investigation.

MOS: That's exactly what...


VAN SUSTEREN: We don't want to hurt it, either.

MOS: OK. Great. Well, that's exactly what I'm appealing to.



VAN SUSTEREN: Will you be part of the interrogation of the three? Is that the role, as the chief prosecutor?

MOS: No, I will not. I'm just coaching in this case. I'm trying to use my experience I have in cases like this. There's another case lawyer dealing with this case. And she's doing fine. It's great, and I'm just helping her out.

And these are tough decisions we have been taking, and we are not doing it on our own. It's not just one person taking that decision. We take it as an organization, and meaning (ph) an organization, we (INAUDIBLE) with -- there are 45 people here, and they contribute one way or another in this case, either in registering cases, either in making paperwork, either in them bringing papers to the judge or in thinking about the case.

And this decision to re-arrest these three suspects was a decision taken by 10 lawyers, by 10 lawyers sitting around a table (INAUDIBLE) whole afternoon, being presented the new material. And we thought about it a lot, and of course, we felt about all the press attention coming with it. That's a tough decision to take because we know that this press attention in the past didn't do Aruba much good. That's exactly the reason why we are talking to you right now because we don't want to do anything covered or not in the open. We want to tell and account for what we are doing, and it's what we're trying to do right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: I wonder whether it's the prosecutor's function in this country or a police function to do the questioning at this stage, or whether it's a combination.

MOS: I understand. My colleague who's dealing with this case has an every day briefing with the police, telling her what is going on in the case and what decisions have to be taken. If these decisions concern the involvement of the judge and the preparing of an involvement of the judge by asking the judge's orders or talking to the judge to give us the possibility to do some things in the investigation, she's responsible for that. And she's in lead of the investigation. That's the way it's organized here. The execution of the whole investigation is done by police officers, who were, in this case, after the Dutch were involved, handpicked from the Netherlands and working together with experienced Aruban police officers, making a team who try to build this case up to a decision we have to take.

VAN SUSTEREN: So these are new police officers. They're not the ones that were first -- that were first (INAUDIBLE) I was thinking -- you're new to the case and a lot of prosecutors are new to the case. But in terms of the detectives or police assigned to it are new. They're not the ones who originally -- they're not the...

MOS: On the Aruban side, there are still police officers involved who were involved in the past because it's very important. They have the historic insight in this case. They know where things are, what they heard and who were involved.

And the Dutch guys much lean on that information. And again, they took a fresh view on the whole investigation they got from Aruba, and they found the new leads in the case. They said, This is what you have to reinvestigate. This is what we have to go for. These witnesses have to be sought and have to be questioned. That's what they did, and we call it a sort of review. That's what they did, and they make a report on that. And on the basis of the report, we did the investigation in the period between April and June and now in October and November.

VAN SUSTEREN: As it stands now, the two Kalpoe brothers are detained, and they will be detained until the next hearing, which is when? Thursday?

MOS: I think it's on Thursday, yes. Maybe Friday.

VAN SUSTEREN: And at that point, you go for another eight days?

MOS: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And Joran van der Sloot, he is detained. When does his eight days run?

MOS: He was detained by an order of the judge on which he was arrested in the Netherlands. The judge first had to give this order and had to study the material first. Then he was arrested in the Netherlands for a period of eight days in custody. And this period of eight days now, just two hours ago was prolonged for another eight days, which will expire somewhere by the end of next week.

VAN SUSTEREN: And then do you have an opportunity to go for another eight days?

MOS: In the case of Joran, no. Then we will have to ask him -- the judge to prolong this period with another 60 days. And in the case of the brothers, we still have to go into this eight days (INAUDIBLE).

VAN SUSTEREN: And that, of course, then would take you beyond your personal time, if it were the 60 days, of the end of December, of when you're going to make a decision.

MOS: But then things have to be clear by then by questioning these guys. So that 31st of December stands as it is.

VAN SUSTEREN: And I take it that that date is a squishy one, in the sense that if you think that you need more information or that you can get more information, that you'll change that date. That's just what you are hoping for.

MOS: I have given the word to the judge and to the lawyers of the brothers that if by the 31st of December, things are not clear, this case will be dismissed. They will be charged if it's a case that we can try in court. And I said the only exception I make on not making it up to the date of the 31st of December, because I had -- I needed a small way out, is if there is very, very heavy and important evidence coming up between now and 31st of December 31.

For example, finding the body of Natalee Holloway, which would be a very, very important piece of evidence, or maybe any other source of evidence, for example, a witness who just filmed the whole killing of the girl. (INAUDIBLE) witnesses there. He would come up and say, Hey, here's my material. (INAUDIBLE) see who done it. Well, then, that would change the thing. But I also said when I asked for this little escape for myself, I have no indication that a thing like that will happen.


Content and Programming Copyright 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), 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.