Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Scottish Moslems, Hindus call for more Christianity | Main | Two British Muslims killed in Iraq »

November 28, 2005

HarryTho 11/28 Natalee Holloway Update And Commentary

Topics: Natalee Holloway

Let's start with a Monday evening editorial on the "Skeeter tapes," and then we'll see what else we have time to address.

By now, most readers of the Natalee Holloway posts have read of the Dutch Forensic Institute's (DFI) conclusion that the Jamie Skeeter tape, aired on the Dr. Phil Show for American and international audiences, was manipulated.

Let us be clear here that the word manipulated should not be confused with the word edited In this instance, the word manipulated refers to a more sinister form of editing where portions of the content of the tape were rearranged in order to provide statements in contradistinction to the statements that were actually uttered and recorded.

Through admission, the tapes were recorded by Jamie Skeeter during a conversation in an Aruban hotel room between Jamie Skeeter and Deepak Kalpoe. Deepak Kalpoe was never made aware that his conversation was being recorded. Also through admission, Jamie Skeeter enticed Deepak Kalpoe into the conversation with promises of a book publishing deal. Whether or not Jamie Skeeter had any intention of following through with a publishing contract for Deepak Kalpoe has not been determined.

For credibility, Jamie Skeeter refered to his former senior police officer position with a reasonably-large, metropolitan, law enforcement agency, and his ultimate position as a police chief in a smaller community. Jamie Skeeter also cited his credentials as a polygraphist. In support of Jamie Skeeter, Beth Twitty announced her ultimate confidence in his credibility to the international audiences of the cable news networks. Other accredited investigators, hired as agents in one capacity or another, likewise supported the credentials of Jamie Skeeter. Clearly, Jamie Skeeter was accepted as a knowledgeable and competent investigator by everyone involved.

The tapes consist of one DVD, one VHS and one Beta used of TV airings. These tapes are all replicants from Jamie Skeeter's hard drive. Through admission, Jamie Skeeter recorded the conversation between Deepak Kalpoe and he onto his hard drive. From the hard drive, he downloaded the conversation onto a DVD. The DVD was then used to create the VHS. Through admission, the downloads were unadulterated. The VHS copy was then "edited" by Dr. Phil's technical staff onto a Beta tape for presentation to TV audiences. Some two hours of VHS tape was reduced to a specific 8 seconds in Beta format.

The 8 seconds were then aired by Dr. Phil to the American, if not international, audiences. Present for those airings were Jamie Skeeter, Beth Twitty, Clint van Zandt, Harold Copus, Ty Ritter and Dr. Phil McGraw. Furthermore, many of those present, especially Jamie Skeeter, were hosted and interviewed concerning the 8 seconds of the Beta tape aired by Dr. Phil McGraw. At no time did anyone, especially Jamie Skeeter, question the accuracy of the 8-second Beta tape with the actual recordings on Jamie Skeeter's hard drive, the DVD and/or the VHS tape.

The content of the 8-second Beta tape essentially conveys that Deepak Kalpoe, a suspect in a murder-kidnapping-rape investigation, made false statements to Aruban investigators. But, more so, the 8-second Beta tape states, or seriously implies, that the three main suspects in the case engaged in multiple sexual encounters with an over whelmingly and willing alleged victim. The DFI discounts this statement on the 8-second Beta tape as a fabrication and completely inconsistent with the conversation existing on the DVD and the VHS tape. The conversation on the DVD and VHS tape denies any sexual encounter whatsoever with the alleged victim which is consistent with the testimony of the three suspects to the Aruban authorities.

Has a crime been committed?

A crime is generally described as an act or an omission, prohibited by law, that is harmful to the public. From the foregoing, we have a manipulated or forged presentation. I employ the word "forged" in order to convey a holistic representation of the act before us. A recording was manipulated from a negative to an affirmative in order to realize profit and do harm to a party to the conversation. Furthermore, the forgery evoked a state's rebuke of the another nation, igniting international discord.

Forgery is a felony. Forgery includes substantially altering a genuine document with an intent to defraud. The elements of forgery are fraudulent intent and a document capable of performing the intent. Generally, the language of forgery is limited to written documents; however, our electronic age has extended the language in order to include electronic media.

Another issue is perjury. Generally, the notion of perjury resides with official statements made under oath. Clearly, no statements were made under oath (of which I am aware). However, the scope of perjury extends to affirmations within proceedings. In this case, we have a forgery being submitted into a criminal investigation as evidence. In order for the DFI to have taken the time to authenticate the tapes, there must have been some affirmation from Jamie Skeeter that the tapes represented what Dr. Phil McGraw aired to the American audiences. Whatever the Aruban law enforcement contends on the issue of affirmation, there exists ample affirmation, concerning the tapes, by Jamie Skeeter from the cable news networks.

Can Jamie Skeeter be charged with forgery? The issue gravitates on whether or not Jamie Skeeter intended to forge the Beta-tape aired by Dr. Phil McGraw. Now, Jamie can take the position that he merely handed the VHS tape over to Dr. Phil McGraw who then proceeded to manipulate the tape without Jamie Skeeter's knowledge. It is an interesting avenue of defense.

However, Jamie Skeeter made a number of representations on the cable news networks that what Dr. Phil aired was, in fact, what he recorded. Clearly, Jamie Skeeter was aware of the content within 8-second Beta tape, aired to American audiences. For forgery, whether or not Jamie Skeeter specifically partook in the forgery is of no consequence. He presented a VHS tape to Dr. Phil that did not contain what he purported that it did. Furthermore, I would suspect that Dr. Phil McGraw ascertained Jamie Skeeter's concurrence with the 8-second Beta tape prior to its airing to a national audience.

With this thought in mind, another crime surfaces, called publishing. Publishing refers to offering a forged document to someone else and pretending that it is genuine with an intent to defraud. Publishing is worse than forgery, because the publisher need not have participated in the forgery nor does anyone have to be harmed. The very fact of offering constitutes a crime.

Interestingly, in this tape issue, Jamie Skeeter is standing by his recordings, despite being in error (per the DFI) as to their contents. Apparently, everyone else who partook in the creation and certification of the 8-second Beta tape is doing likewise.

It reads like law enforcement training has done wonders to hone the minds of forgerers and publishers.

Rita Crosby of MSNBC hosted Arlene Ellis-Schipper, Jamie Skeeter and Dave Holloway. Arlene Ellis Schipper went through the findings of the Dutch Forensic Institute (DFI), and claimed that there was a serious manipulation of the tape aired on the Dr. Phil Show and the Rita Crosby Show. "No, she didn't" was manipulated to "she did." Arlene reports that the DFI is willing to air the CD (DVD) and VHS versions of the tapes, so that the international audiences can make up their own minds about what was said.

Jamie Skeeter went through some statements that he found over the weekend on the tapes. None of which seemed to match what was aired on the Dr. Phil Show. Skeeter seemed confused and spouted something about editing and downloads that did(n't) seem to make any sense to the conversation with Rita. However, Rita continued to probe him over the tapes.

Skeeter tried to explain away the DFI results. He was unsuccessful. Although, he admitted that the two statements "she did" and "You would be surprised how easy it was" were not in sequence, as aired by Dr. Phil, Skeeter now claims that other conversations filled in the space between the two statements. He did not elaborate on what that conversation contained.

Dave Holloway came on to run down the DFI and Aruban authorities. He said that we try to give them evidence, and they refuse to accept it. He said he would listen to the tape himself, if FedEx delivers it to him tomorrow.

The DFI will air the DVD and VHS tapes anytime, and let the American audience make up their own minds about what is contained on Skeeter's unedited tapes.

And lastly, I just got the preview of Greta On The Record ... it appears that as far as Nat Holloway is concerned , Greta is "off the record"

More tomorow. Aloha!

Posted for HarryTho

Posted by Richard at November 28, 2005 7:40 PM

Interestingly, in this tape issue, Jamie Skeeter is standing by his recordings, despite being in error (per the DFI) as to their contents. Apparently, everyone else who partook in the creation and certification of the 8-second Beta tape is doing likewise. It reads like law enforcement training has done wonders to hone the minds of forgerers and publishers.
-----------------------

Dompig made some interesting comments on Abrams when discussing the tape. The most telling to me that he was still bothered by what Deepak says immediately after the "She didn't." comment. He said that the sentence did not make sense.

My guess, would be that the response is not edited in the sense that Deepak actually does say "YOu'd be surprised how simple it was" immediately following the "She did not." comment. Obviously, that response does not make sense if preceeded by the "She didn't." statement.

I'm unsure though how they are claiming the tape was manipulated. Are they saying that the Dr. Phil transcript doesn't match what was said? I don't think they are saying it was copied and pasted to create a different meaning, though that is another possibility. More than likely, I think they are saying that they distorted what Deepak actually said so that "She didn't" appears as "She did." Perhaps by adding sound into the background of the tape or lowering the volume of Deepak's words.

Whatever the case, the FBI's analysis should be the final word on the subject, since they have access to Skeeter's hard drive, which I believe the DFI did not.

Posted by: DT at November 28, 2005 9:11 PM

DT:

Your comments come from the manipulated 8-second Beta tape. On the DVD and VHS, the statements "She did not" and "You would be surprised how easy it was" are not located near one another. The statement "You would be surprised how easy it was" is a response to an entirely different question unrelated to the question answered by "She did not."

You are correct, Jamie Skeeter handed his hard drive over to the Ventura office of the FBI shortly before the DFI announcement of manipulation. I believe the timing of the FBI request and receipt of the Skeeter's hard drive was telling, as well.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 28, 2005 9:39 PM

I don't think the hard drive is going to reveal anything. Skeeters isn't stupid, just corrupt. The FBI knows the tape was manipulated and didn't do a thing about it. It doesn't take them that long to check something out. Skeeter wouldn't let them have a hard drive that proved he lied, he did something, but not being a criminal myself, I can't even guess what he might have done. But I want to know how the worthless FBI is going to get out of this one. BTW how many have heard about Beth Twitty's DUI's? I understand she got two, one in Mississippi and one in Alabama. Read it on a web site somewhere.

Posted by: flightoffancy at November 28, 2005 9:55 PM

DT:

Your comments come from the manipulated 8-second Beta tape. On the DVD and VHS, the statements "She did not" and "You would be surprised how easy it was" are not located near one another. The statement "You would be surprised how easy it was" is a response to an entirely different question unrelated to the question answered by "She did not."

------------------

Can I ask what your source is for that? My understanding was that the DVD was not manipulated, and that the only problem was that they heard "She didn't," not "She did."

Dompig's comments wouldn't really make sense if that were the case. Unless, of course, Deepak said something else afterwords that also wouldn't make sense if he had said "She didn't."

Posted by: DT at November 28, 2005 10:11 PM

DT:

See the Rita Crosby addition to our Evening Editorial. To answer your specific question: Jamie Skeeter, as narrated above. As Arlene Ellis-Schipper and Rita Crosby conclude, the difference between "No, she didn't" and "She did" is a serious manipulation. As time unfolds, I believe, it will be classified as a felony. I suspect someone is going to jail.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 28, 2005 10:26 PM

DT:

See the Rita Crosby addition to our Evening Editorial. To answer your specific question: Jamie Skeeter, as narrated above. As Arlene Ellis-Schipper and Rita Crosby conclude, the difference between "No, she didn't" and "She did" is a serious manipulation. As time unfolds, I believe, it will be classified as a felony. I suspect someone is going to jail.

With Aloha,

Harry
---------------------

I definitely agree that such a manipulation is a serious offense, and would hope for jail time or at least fines in regards to the people who were involved in these acts.

I think I phrased my question the wrong way. What I meant to ask is what your source was for the claim that "You'd be surprised how simple it was." was an answer to a different question. I have definitely heard that they edited the tape, and agree that is a serious offense. I have not, however, heard that those manipulations entailed swapping the order of questions and answers, specifically.

By the way, Greta did go over the tapes tonight with Arlene. And Beth went over them last night on Fox as well. Still think they were trying to dodge the issue with the special episode of Greta Friday night? There isn't much sense in dodging an issue for a total of two days.

Posted by: DT at November 28, 2005 10:36 PM

DT:

Here it is from Jamie Skeeter's mouth, narrated above in the addition to our Evening Editorial:

"Skeeter tried to explain away the DFI results. He was unsuccessful. Although, he admitted that the two statements "she did" and "You would be surprised how easy it was" were not in sequence, as aired by Dr. Phil, Skeeter now claims that other conversations filled in the space between the two statements. He did not elaborate on what that conversation contained."

If you desire to know the actual question that prompted the "You would be surprised how easy it was (that night)," you will have to await the airing of the DVD and/or VHS by the DFI.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 28, 2005 10:48 PM

Nevermind my previous question, I just read your statement about Skeeters interview with Rita and see where it is answered. Thanks.

Posted by: DT at November 28, 2005 10:48 PM

How are we suppose to know IF the FBI, got Jamie Skeeters hard drive? Has anyone from the FBI confirmed this? Or is Jamie Skeeters stating this? If that all it is, his credibility is in the toilet, as far as I am concerned.

Let's hear confirmation from the FBI.

Posted by: Donna at November 28, 2005 11:15 PM

harry: i find it interesting that above & beyond the question of editing the skeeter's tapes....not to mention altering....since sep 15 in all of the many interviews conducted with skeeters- not one of the talk show hosts has ever asked " WHY DIDN'T YOU TURN THESE TAPES INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE THEY WERE HANDED OVER TO THE GOOD DOCTOR?" it is after all an investigation into a missing person's case & skeeters didn't turn the tapes over to the fbi until at least 2 weeks after their inital airing

to me this is a very signifigant question.......
the corruption i see in our media continues to astound me

Posted by: chip at November 28, 2005 11:29 PM

Monsieur Harry,
Interesting the fact that they are going to aired the tapes in an international way.
What I have realized now is that Natalee is not any more a honor Student and seems that the case turned to be an entry for Beth in the entertainment business. For Mr. Holloway well think he did not see Natalee very often according to all the comments in the net. Jaime Skeeters, IMO he thought his EVIDENCE was not going to be question, took a chance. Play with fire and is burning. Now, we (in many Countries) are expecting the FBI results and punishment.
Magnifique travail.
Antoinette

Posted by: antoinette at November 28, 2005 11:45 PM

SNIP: Jaime Skeeters, IMO he thought his EVIDENCE was not going to be question, took a chance. Play with fire and is burning. Now, we (in many Countries) are expecting the FBI results and punishment.
Magnifique travail.
Antoinette

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the FBI to punish anyone in re this matter. IMO, the FBI will not act until they are forced to act.

Posted by: Max at November 28, 2005 11:58 PM

SNIP: The tapes consist of one DVD, one VHS and one Beta used of TV airings. These tapes are all replicants from Jamie Skeeter's hard drive.

Posted by Richard at November 28, 2005 07:40 PM

I am shocked that the Dutch didn't demand the originals. How did Skeeters get away with sending them copies?

Posted by: Max at November 29, 2005 12:07 AM

Dear chip:

As I understand an agency-client relationship existed between Jamie Skeeter (agent) and Dr. Phil McGraw (client). Under this relationship, Jamie Skeeter may have been obligated to turn the tapes over to Dr. Phil McGraw. In a sense, Dr. Phil McGraw might be more involved in this manipulation of the tapes than anyone suspects. Eventually, Dr. Phil McGraw's agency-client relationship with Jamie Skeeter will be scrutinized.

In a civil action sense, Dr. Phil McGraw becomes liable for all actions conducted by Jamie Skeeter. Hence, irrespective of the person(s) at fault for the manipulation of the tapes, Dr. Phil McGraw will be held liable.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 29, 2005 12:47 AM

Hi Harry,

Won't it be Dr. Phil McGraw, Harpo productions and King World Productions?

Posted by: little bo peep at November 29, 2005 12:54 AM

I am shocked that the Dutch didn't demand the originals. How did Skeeters get away with sending them copies?

Posted by: Max at November 29, 2005 12:07 AM

The Dutch got the tapes through the FBI. Skeeters at one time stated that he offered the original hard drive to the FBI, but that the FBI hadn't comne for them yet. I think that trying to save face he finally decided to do what he should have done all along: go to the nearest FBI office and hand it over!!
Depending on the priority of the case for both FBI and NFI (sadly there are more crimes to be investigated) we should here from them soon!

From Holland with Love,


Also_Dutch

Posted by: Also_Dutch at November 29, 2005 1:42 AM

Harry, good work on this and allso greetings to Antoinette and also_dutch!

Posted by: Louiza at November 29, 2005 4:56 AM

WHERE IS THE OUT CRY FOR THE FBI IN REGARDS TO THE SKEETER TAPES? WILL THEY SAY THEY ARE SORRY TO DEEPAK? >> BETH SAID THERE WERE YOUNG GIRLS WHO THEY RAPED ??? I THINK BETH IS LIABEL HURT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HURT PEOPLE >>>.. NAT IS THE ONE FROM A BROKEN FAMILY NOT JVS & THE BROTHERS. THEY DONT HAVE ARREST RECORDS!!

Posted by: Ribby at November 29, 2005 6:51 AM

Dear Max:

As I recall, there was no mention of a hard drive early on. What Jamie Skeeter purported to be the originals was a DVD. Only when probed, much later, as to the original medium with which the conversation with Deepak Kalpoe was recorded, did Jamie Skeeter reveal that he recorded it on his hard drive. By that time, the DVD and the subsequent VHS tape that produced the 8-second Beta tape for Dr. Phil McGraw were in the hands of the FBI. Recall that the FBI kept the DVD and VHS tape for quite some time and had to be prompted often by the Aruban authorities in order to release them. I believe only via pressure from the diplomatic channels persuaded the FBI to release the DVD and VHS tape to the Aruban police. I would say that it would be safe to assume that the FBI know precisely what is contained on these tapes. The FBI's silence may emanate from a gag placed upon them by the State Department, given the horrendous political implications. Remember, one of our state governors issued a boycott against Aruba.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 29, 2005 1:32 PM

Regardless of what you think of Beth, she, no doubt, has become quite media savvy throughout all this ordeal!!

Tonight (11/29) ABC will air Barbara Walter's special on the 10 most fascinating people of 2005 ....and Beth Holloway Twitty is one of them ... and quite possibly is the #1 most fascinating?!?! Tune in at prime time!

Posted by: kat at November 29, 2005 1:45 PM

WIIL BARBARA GET HER TO CRY??( OR WILL HER ACTING TEACHER )tune iN .. REMEMBER BETH SAID JVS WAS A RAPPIST, WAIL HE WAS IN JAIL, THAT COULD HAVE GOTTEN HIM KIILLED OR BETTER>

Posted by: Anthony at November 29, 2005 4:20 PM

I WAS IN ARUBA IN JUNE .. I COULD NOT BELIVE THE SUPPORT NAT GOT FROM THE ARUBANS ! I NEVER SAW ANYTHING LIKE IT IN THE US. BETH CANNOT BELIVE THAT THESE BOYS ARE GANG RAPPEST KILLERS!I FEEL SORRY FOR NAT BUT IF SHE IS LIKE HER MOTHER THE RESON THEy CANNOT FIND HER IS BECAUSE LIKE BETH ,U C RIGHT THROUGH HER

Posted by: RIBBY at November 29, 2005 4:37 PM

I WAS IN ARUBA IN JUNE .. I COULD NOT BELIVE THE SUPPORT NAT GOT FROM THE ARUBANS ! I NEVER SAW ANYTHING LIKE IT IN THE US. BETH CANNOT BELIVE THAT THESE BOYS ARE GANG RAPPEST KILLERS!I FEEL SORRY FOR NAT BUT IF SHE IS LIKE HER MOTHER THE RESON THEy CANNOT FIND HER IS BECAUSE LIKE BETH ,U C RIGHT THROUGH HER

Posted by: RIBBY at November 29, 2005 4:38 PM

Since all of you here are such experts and professionals with your knowledge and analytical abilities, why don't you bring your "evidence" to the Aruban authorities and put an end to the investigation?

Or, better yet, tell the world where Natalee Holloway disappeared.

Posted by: dr_usa_23 at November 29, 2005 7:09 PM

Dear dr_usa:

Let me share a secret with you. You are not the only one to have stumbled onto our site.

With Aloha,

Harry

Posted by: harry Author Profile Page at November 29, 2005 7:26 PM

Oh dr_usa,

You're apparently off your meds again. Relax, take some deep breaths. Life is good and you're going to be okay, dispite little daily frustrations.

Posted by: Richard at November 29, 2005 7:55 PM

Since all of you here are such experts and professionals with your knowledge and analytical abilities, why don't you bring your "evidence" to the Aruban authorities and put an end to the investigation?

Or, better yet, tell the world where Natalee Holloway disappeared.

Posted by: dr_usa_23 at November 29, 2005 07:09 PM


Dear Dr_USA

If I ONLY knew where Natalee took off to, I certainly would BE more than happy to bring her home, just for the SOLE purpose, of getting Beth TWITTY, off MY cable news programs that I used to enjoy watching, but have since boycotted!

Posted by: Donna at November 29, 2005 8:48 PM



Articles Related to Natalee Holloway: