November 23, 2005
HarryTho 10/23 Natalee Holloway Update And CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
From the AP this evening, comes a report that, according to Aruba police, Dutch experts say that the Dr. Phil tape on the Natalee Holloway case was manipulated.
This report reads like fraud on the part of Dr. Phil, and if true, I would expect criminal proceedings to ensue against Dr. Phil and all parties who contributed to this fabrication.
Forensic investigators in Holland have found that someone altered a taped interview in which a Surinamese man allegedly claimed to have had sex with a U.S. teen who disappeared while visiting Aruba, the island's police chief said Wednesday.
"The tapes played on U.S. television appear to have been altered to suggest Deepak admitted to a sexual act, our forensic investigators tell us, the original tape did not say that," Gerald Dompig, the chief of police for this Dutch Caribbean island, said in a statement.
On the tape, Deepak allegedly says Holloway "dressed like a slut," and that he, his brother, Satish, and Dutch national Joran van der Sloot had sex with Holloway, who would have turned 19 in October.In addition to Dr. Phil, some serious questions will also need to be addressed to Jamie Skeeter. Jamie neglected to mention a correction to Dr. Phil's airing that found eager reception on all our cable news networks.
"I have reviewed the findings of the Forensic Institute in Holland ... those results state that the tapes were not authentic in regard to statement made by Deepak Kalpoe," Dompig said.
"We have asked the FBI to review the same tapes to corroborate the conclusion reached by our Dutch forensic investigators," the statement said.
It appears that the American public has been duped.
In a related item, Jamie Colby on Fox News interviewed Arlene Ellis-Schipper, Dave Holloway, Jamie Skeeter and Mark Furhman.
Arlene briefed that the Dutch Forensic Institute (DFI) has determined that the CD-ROM and VHS provided by Jamie Skeeter were authentic. The VHS was altered prior to airing by Dr. Phil in a manner that what was aired did not represent the actual statements of Deepak Kalpoe. The DFI have asked the FBI to verify their results.
Arlene reported that the attorney for Deepak Kalpoe was quick to announce that the tapes of Deepak Kalpoe were tampered with.
When asked about how these tapes will effect the investigation, Arlene responded that the investigation is ongoing. She did not commit that Deepak will be reinterviewed.
Then, Dave Holloway reported that he was counting on the tapes being authentic. He said that he feels that the tapes were not manipulated and questions what the Dutch are doing ... perhaps trying to avoid using the tapes? He said that he will not give up. Texas EquuSearch will return to Aruba next week to do some searching off Aruba's coast. As for the boycott, Dave feels that it got the Arubans' attention.
Jamie Skeeter upheld the authenticity of his tapes. He asserted that his DVD was authentic. He claims that when the Dr. Phil Show downloaded the DVD onto Beta tapes for airing, they condensed the content of the two hour tape into a few seconds. He feels that, if there exists confusion, it occurs in the condensation. However, Jamie states that Deepak told him that he had sex with Natalee and that it was easy. Jamie claims he conferred with Police Chief Dompig on the questioning remarks revealed today, that Dompig agreed with him, and that the police will be reinterviewing Deepak Kalpoe because of other information that is mentioned on the tapes.
Mark Furhman feels that the Dutch results of the forensics on the tapes is very damaging to the case. A defense attorney can now ask how much more information/evidence in the case is not what they have been led to believe as factual. Essentially, the case is mortally wounded. Mark feels now that the scope of the investigation will expand to the Dr. Phil Show. He detailed also how Jamie Skeeter, as an experienced interrogator, should have followed up if Deepak Kalpoe responded in an affirmative, as Jamie contends, to having sex with Natalee. The fact that Jamie did not hints that Deepak Kalpoe responded in the negative (as the DFI contends) and not in the affirmative as Jamie contends. Mark called the DFI findings a defense attorney's dream.
I agree with Mark Furhman on this. Jamie's follow up questions do not match the routine procedure for a trained investigator, following up on an affirmative answer.
The tape that was aired was fraudulent, and Jamie Skeeter did not alert anyone to its inaccuracy.
With that, we'll call it a break, after all it's just about Thanksgiving and tomorow's a busy day for most folks. although we have a little more, it's nothing that can't wait, so we'll limit tonight's post to the Dr. Phil - related fiasco.
Aloha for tonight!
Posted For HarryTho
Posted by Richard at November 23, 2005 10:46 PM
"we'll limit tonight's post to the Dr. Phil - related fiasco."
Nicely phrased, Mr. Tho.
I used to work for a Hong Kong-based airline, where face was a very important thing (screw truth: face is what counted in old Asia), and some of the fiascos that I sat in on would have done HollowayMedia Inc. proud.
After listening to peoples' desperate twistings and posturings, I would often suggest, "the only difference between face and farce is one consonant--and you seem to have inserted the 'r' some time ago."
Posted by: Dayo at November 23, 2005 11:47 PM
Manipulation does not get much more incriminating than this:
"The tapes of Deepak Kalpoe being questioned by Jamie Skeeters did not provide any new information for investigators. In fact, one tape that was of the interview run on the Dr. Phil show was "manipulated" according to forsenic experts.
In that tape, when asked if he or anyone had sex with Natalee, he responds...no one had sex with her...
The Dr. Phil version seems to have dropped out the "no or no one" in their version."
.... from Aruba Truth
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 3:22 PM
I feel that this your column uses an erroneous perception that the manipulated interview was purported to effect certain legal actions. e.g. arrest. But it would be so if a tape was presented to LE rather than aired on TV. Since the fabricated piece of "interview" was held for a while, aired on TV and sent to LE only upon demand (yet the demand followed the claim by Deepak's attorney), it is obvious to me that sole purpose of this fabrication was a TV-entertainment. Which means that liability of manufacturers is only civil.
BTW, if you missed it, note that according http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/20051116/10_Most_Fascinating_People_2005/20051116/ Beth twitty is recognized a personality in the field of entertainment/politics.
Posted by: George at November 24, 2005 5:39 PM
The Skeeter tapes, aired by Dr. Phil McGraw, were sent to the Aruban police as evidence and not entertainment. No one at any of the cable news networks, much less Dr. Phil, made any caveats that those tapes were for entertainment purposes. Those tapes were passed off as evidence, and the Aruban and Dutch Law Enforcement effort were condemned for not investigating these tapes. Now, when the ruse is revealed, you contend that these talking-heads can slither under an umbrella that the tapes were a joke! I do not think so. The Skeeter tapes were aired with Jamie Skeeter's full knowledge that their contents had been altered. Jamie Skeeter is an accredited interrogator. He knows better, even if under the legal concept of culpable inefficiency.
Now, Dr. Phil McGraw can contend that he relied on Jamie Skeeter's approval and certification of the condensed version of the tapes prior to airing. He might slip out of some liability by employing the "I relied on Skeeter" defense. The same will hold true for cable news networks. One cable news network, I feel, telecasted a post-DFI-results interview with Jamie Skeeter precisely to get Skeeter's admission on record that what the cable news network aired was, in fact, what Jamie Skeeter's certified was on the tapes.
George, those tapes were passed off as evidence by Jamie Skeeter. To me, those tapes amount to planted evidence in a murder investigation. Clearly, we are discussing a felony here.
The civil suit is obvious.
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 6:20 PM
I contended that Skeeter's "tape" is a joke for months that it was repeatedly aired on TV and not sent to LE; this is NOT a way to handle evidence or purported evidence in murder investigation. This was being "passed off as evidence" to TV-entertainment consumers and not to investigators; the latter had yet to demand that so-called "evidence". To me, this is just tasteless entertainment protected in USA by 1st Amendment.
Posted by: George at November 24, 2005 6:46 PM
The First Amendment allows freedom of speech. Clearly, we are allowed to speak our minds and opinions. In this instance, an accredited individual fabricated evidence in a murder investigation. The act of fabricating and disseminating lies (of this serious of a nature) is not protected by the First Amendment based upon its affront to justice. The person accrediting and certifying the tapes knew, or should have known via culpable inefficiency, that his actions and certifications were unjust. Furthermore, the cable news networks did not provide equal time for rebuttal of Dr. Phil's nor their claims .... another violation of the First Amendment. What was aired was a lie, and the person certifying the lie as truth was knowledgeable of the lie (culpable inefficiency, if required). Clearly, he was not speaking his mind. We have a felony here, and we have accomplices.
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 8:08 PM
Dear Harry and Richard
The Dutch admitted to manipulation of the tape. They plainly stated they are talking about editing for TV. They are not talking about manipulation of content (words).You will never have a lawsuit.
We,you Harry and Richard know that some info Dr. Phil had came from us. Why do you think he would throw in bogus stuff at the same time. Do you know why the FBI is silent?
Posted by: Allan at November 24, 2005 8:34 PM
I have never read any Dutch/Aruban documentation that the Dutch manipulated the tapes. The Dutch Forensic Institute (DFI) merely authenticated the tapes: DVD, VHS and Beta for TV. Furthermore, Police Chief Dompig will have the FBI second check the findings of the DFI.
The editing from VHS to Beta for airing on the Dr. Phil Show is the tape in question that the Dutch claim was manipulated from the DVD and VHS versions. The DVD and VHS versions have been authenticate. It is in this authentication that the DFI claims the words aired in the Beta tape for TV were manipulate. In other words, The DFI has two reference tapes: DVD and VHS, that contain what Jamie Skeeter initially recorded in his conversation with Deepak Kalpoe. The DFI claims that the incriminating language, aired by Dr. Phil McGraw, was absent in the reference tapes. The incriminating language only appears in the Beta tape condensed for TV. Succinctly, the Beta tape was altered to produce the incriminating language aired to American audiences.
As for Dr. Phil's airings on the matter, yes, I sighted some of our material about which we were asked to remain silent. However, I, also, sighted a humorous Latin American adventure which Dr. Phil aired. If Dr. Phil could air that comedy section, then he could air other ridiculous material.
It is an unfair question to ask me why I think the FBI remains silent in this case. You, and the rest of America, do not want to read my answer.
My question to you is: do you actually suspect that the DFI would manipulate the tapes under all this international scrutiny?
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 9:37 PM
It is an unfair question to ask me why I think the FBI remains silent in this case. You, and the rest of America, do not want to read my answer.
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 09:37 PM
Not true, Harry. I have my own opinion of why they're silent, but I would VERY MUCH like to hear yours!
Posted by: Max at November 24, 2005 9:59 PM
There is an old saying, "Silence speaks Volumns". I would like to know just what the "Volumns" is as to why our FBI have not spoken up to clear the air, on this Twitty/Holloway fiasco? At this point I am not quite getting it. Please enlighten.
Posted by: therose at November 24, 2005 10:13 PM
Did the FBI verified the tapes BEFORE they were sent to the DLE? I remember that they were expecting for the tapes for a long time.
I asked you before the same question about the FBI. But now think your silence or the fact that you do not share your opinion, tell me that they have not finish either with their investigation. No word from DEA, either.
Now I am wondering that Mansur did not go to Fla for a medical check up.
Posted by: antoinette at November 24, 2005 11:02 PM
Mademoiselle Antoinette et Mssers Max & therose:
The FBI had the tapes in their possession for quite some time. If you recall, the Aruban authorities had to pester the FBI quite often in order to acquire the tapes. It is my opinion that the FBI have already checked the tapes, discovered their manipulated nature and ignored the Aruban authorities.
To me, the request by Police Chief Dompig for the FBI to reverify the tapes translates into "the ball is in your court" with respect to Jamie Skeeter. After all, Jamie Skeeter is an American citizen, currently residing on American soil. I realize this needs not be said, but with all the publicity from the cable news networks about the Natalee Holloway case and the professionalism of the Aruban authorities, this Skeeter tapes' finding is terrible news for the United States and the FBI.
I will just leave you with the manner in which the FBI conducted the early Mountain Brook investigations, their assistance in Aruba and the recent holding on to the Skeeter tapes.
Posted by: harry at November 24, 2005 11:35 PM
Thanks for the reply Harry, sort of like the saying "Something rotten in Denmark" only this time in the "US and FBI". I felt that could be it from the get go but am glad to get someone elses clarification.
Posted by: email@example.com at November 25, 2005 12:39 AM
Hamlet will not be making an appearance in this fiasco. But, I suspect someone will have to fall on their sword.
Posted by: harry at November 25, 2005 2:16 AM
Delivery of tape from FBI to ALE then to Dutch makes a concurrence by the FBI redundant.
Delivery of tape by FBI to ALE and then Dutch is with an understanding of authenticity.
Getting the FBI to reagree that tape is authentic is just a means to stick the knife in deeper at least in the public arena.
Probalbly so that no litigation in US is possible but once a Twiity or a Holloway or a MSM pundit or a Dr. Phil sets foot on Aruba or Dutch territory it will be a different story. The Dutch bill of rights does not include slander as a right.
One amusing note. No Birmingham TV station has broadcast this info. I know they have the AP piece because I sent it to them all. Notably NBC13 - a staunch boycott supporter has become very quite since Tuesday on the boycott subject.
Posted by: paul at November 25, 2005 12:28 PM
Slander is not protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as well. However, the shenanigans orchestrated within these tapes reach farther than slander. America will demand atonement! I believe if the Aruban/Dutch authorities desire to extradite the culprits, they will be able to so. These tapes question the integrity of America.
Posted by: harry at November 25, 2005 1:47 PM
I'll admit that Latin American thing was funny. We want American women. Those guys that have rescued women and kids before must to have lived in the same neighborhood as the victims. Will the FBI ever make a statement or they just hoping it goes away?
Posted by: Allan at November 25, 2005 8:02 PM
Sorry got off the subject above. DFI would not manipulate tapes but thier wording might be off. Remember, I heard it in Aruba a couple of times. Oops, a little mistranslation here.
Posted by: Allan at November 25, 2005 8:12 PM
Dear Paul and Harry,
Although I quite agree that "these tapes question the integrity of America", I got to note that not only they do and that in particular handling of this case in USA does so already for long time. As to practical ramifications, I tend to concur more with Paul. Although the First Amendment may be not protecting slander (I am not so sure), a slander is generally deemed here a civil transgression and not a crime.
One of particular differences between USA and North Korea is that in America a person may be prossecuted only for a particular crime and "bringing shame to Homeland" is not one. Extradition seekers would have to prove that tape manufacturers are accused of taking overseas actions which would be a serious crime if committed in USA. I don't think it is an easy task with those recordings.
Rather than to prolong legal discussion between [apparently] non-lawyers, I will just remind well-known precedent(s) in which Germany did not seek (or succeed in) extradition of American neo-fascists but just waited for their appearence within European Union.
Posted by: George at November 25, 2005 8:39 PM
Sorry, my above comment missed a major point. Look at http://news.google.com/news?scoring=d&q=%22Natalee+Holloway%22+phil - all six links to the AP story "Dutch experts say Dr. Phil tape in case of teen missing in Aruba ‘manipulated'" are Canadian! Not only there is none to Alabaman newssourse, none to any in the US at all!
Posted by: George at November 25, 2005 9:03 PM
George & Paul:
Slander is the least of their worries. Besides, the civil courts will redress the slander.
These tapes constitute fabricating evidence ... a felony. As soon as the FBI transferred the tapes to the Aruban authorities, a crime was created.
As for the publications, I suspect, the American media will not publish any negative (embarrassing) information about this case out of respect for the Twitty-Holloways and the Governor of Alabama.
George, don't be so quick to discount our legal expertise. We might have credentials!
Posted by: harry at November 25, 2005 11:03 PM
The terming "[apparently] non-lawyers" is not discounting anyone's expertise; it is rather like a common disclaimer (seemingly conforming your profiles, in particular). :-)
You say "as soon as the FBI transferred the tapes to the Aruban authorities, a crime was created", but this action is taken by someones else than manufacturers of the tapes, so in order for it to be a final part of a crime of fabrication, this should have been purported at or before manufacturing. I see no evidence that this was purported.
On the adjascent issue, I do not share widespread opinion that Beth Twitty wanted to GET suspects ARRESTED on basis of this tape. I feel that she meant just opposite - to use this as a tool in soliciting support as long as suspects are NOT ARRESTED; actual receipt of the tapes by LE has been predictable detrimental to her real purposes.
Posted by: George at November 26, 2005 1:16 PM
I have explained my position. There is no need recycling this issue.
Posted by: harry at November 26, 2005 10:14 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 10/23 Natalee Holloway Update And Commentary - Nov 23, 2005