It amazes me that people find a way to make Joran look deranged, no matter what the situation. How old was Joran when this event supposedly took place? 16? 15? Satish would not have been much older, and still probably a minor. So, we have here an adult with some kind of issues, who approaches three minors and tries to pick a fight with one. Joran defends his friend and "throws him" off a bridge, whatever that really meant. We don't know how high the bridge was, and I'm guessing it was low enough so that this guy wasn't even injured by landing in the water.
In American law, at least, no minor would be charged for assault in such a situation. An adult attempted to initiate a fight with his fellow underaged friend, and he defended him. Of course, I'm assuming for hypothetical argument's sake that this incident ever happened. I have strong doubts that it did. However, my only point was that the witness who testified to it was clearly trying to report something that he felt would make Joran look bad, but his own words really paint Joran out in a pretty positive light.
As for Joran's stories, who knows? Joran is obviously motivated by money, and each time he gave varying accounts of what happened to Natalee, he was paid to do so. He was a 17 year old kid who was accused of a crime he knew he didn't commit, and I'm sure he (and his family) couldn't help but be affected by the way he was targeted exclusively by Beth and company. I don't think he was trying to be insensitive towards Natalee, but if you believe, as I do, that Joran had nothing to do with her disappearance, you should be able to understand why he developed the attitude he did towards her mother, who loathed him and spared no opportunity to bash him and his father on American television.
As attorney Les Levine described it on JVM's show last week, there is a real lynch mob mentality in both America and Peru towards Joran. He has been so thoroughly demonized by the media, that there is no way he could ever receive a fair trial in either country.