JANSSEN: The father has spoken with those three suspects, and he said he give them some legal advice, but I think the advices were going further than that. They spoke about the situation that when there is no body, you don‘t have a case. And that was already in the first day after the disappearance.

ABRAMS: Again Arlene, maybe I‘m not getting it, but it just doesn‘t seem to me like that is an obstruction of investigation in terms of being a crime. I mean basically what she should be saying is it sounded suspicious to us, but...

ABRAMS: ... not a crime, right?

ELLIS-SCHIPPER: I agree with you. It sounds suspicious and I think you have to bear in mind that Mr. Paul Van der Sloot was not arrested for obstruction of justice.

ABRAMS: Right.

ELLIS-SCHIPPER: That was not the case. He was arrested for reasonable suspicion of a crime. And frankly that did not hold up in front of the judge of instruction.

ABRAMS: Yes, I mean the crime was homicide. I mean the suspicion of homicide is what he was arrested for and yet, she‘s laying out a case that basically sounds like she didn‘t like what he was saying to the son.

ELLIS-SCHIPPER: No, what she is saying—I think what she is trying to explain is that it sounded suspicious and on the basis of that they started to look...

ABRAMS: Yes.

ELLIS-SCHIPPER: ... focus more on him.

ABRAMS: Yes. All right. Arlene Ellis-Schipper once again thank you for coming back on the program. Appreciate it.

ELLIS-SCHIPPER: You‘re welcome.