July 16, 2019, 01:40:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Natalee Holloway/Stephany Flores Case Discussion #868 8/16/13 - 3/20/15  (Read 482814 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2013, 06:12:59 PM »




Justice for Natalee!

 
Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
Kermit
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8230



« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2013, 07:12:00 PM »

Disturbing article imo...I guess Amy Bradley, James Edward Hogan, and Stephen Sudduth (to name a few) didn't quite do it for them?

Have to wonder what victim(s)...tragedy...international drama, might eventually be considered their dream come true?

To my knowledge Aruba hasn't renamed the airport for Natalee, so maybe he was saying they should?  Would that really attract more tourists?

IMO, blatant reminder of what it's all about...TOURISM.  Don't ever forget it!

JMO

 

http://www.curacaochronicle.com/columns/holy-mary-apparition/

Published On: Mon, Sep 16th, 2013 Columns / Featured | By Jacob Gelt Dekker

Holy Mary Apparition

In tourism, an island like Curacao needs to set itself apart from competitors by uniqueness.

 

So, how do we create a ” Holy Mary Apparition” for the island tourist industry of Curacao???

Let’s look at a few success stories nearby. Jamaica had Bob Marley, who became the Saint of Reggae music and the High Priest of the Rasta movement. Marley became immortal for millions and millions around the world and did more for the PR of Jamaica than any agency could have done. A grand drama acted out in Aruba with the beautiful, young, naive and innocent, Natalee Holloway, who disappeared while vacationing on the island. She was probably brutally murdered by the ultimate villain, Joran van der Sloot. It was a drama written in heaven of global appeal that echoed through the media worldwide for years and made Aruba famous and infamous, at the same time. Aruba would seal Natalee’s fate for eternity as an island saint by renaming the airport, “Natalee Holloway Airport.”

 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f7WO_G1Bbw


GIVE NATALEE BACK TO AMERICA[ b]

Then we'll name the airport for you your jackals.




Logged
Bearlyhere
Asst Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17306



« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2013, 11:29:14 PM »


   

Logged

There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.
Time spent with monkeys is never wasted. 
I believe in miracles!
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2013, 12:02:06 AM »

They ought to name the airport after what they are known world-wide for  ----- "Debauchery Field"
Logged

jamcakes
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 694



« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2013, 04:17:50 PM »

One Killing Island Airport
Logged

     Challapalca him!
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2013, 11:13:38 PM »

http://www.caribjournal.com/2013/09/28/ruling-party-wins-aruba-election/

Ruling Party Wins Aruba Election

September 28, 2013 | 11:41 am |



Above: PM Mike Eman celebrates victory

By the Caribbean Journal staff

Aruba Prime Minister Mike Eman’s ruling Aruban People’s Party claimed victory in the Dutch island’s elections on Friday.

The AVP won 13 seats in the Estates of Aruba, with the People’s Electoral Movement (MEP) finishing second with seven seats, according to preliminary results from Aruba’s government elections office.

 

The win means another four years for Eman and the AVP in power, following the party’s victory in the 2009 vote. When confirmed, the results would represent a one-seat improvement for the AVP for its results in 2009.
Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
Lifesong
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2223



« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2013, 11:17:10 PM »


Please light a candle remembering Natalee and her family's quest for answers.  Since two were created, you may use one or both.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=NAH

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=Nat%27s


 

Logged

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."  - Galileo
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2013, 11:30:50 PM »


Please light a candle remembering Natalee and her family's quest for answers.  Since two were created, you may use one or both.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=NAH

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=Nat%27s


 



 an angelic monkey

Thanks Lifesong, great to see you!   
Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2013, 11:37:52 PM »

http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/471603/dr-phil-unlikely-to-duck-liability-over-holloway-show

Dr. Phil Unlikely To Duck Liability Over Holloway Show

By Matthew Heller 0 Comments

Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 4:44 PM ET) -- A California state judge indicated Tuesday he will deny television personality Dr. Phil McGraw's bid to escape a publicity rights claim brought by two brothers suspected in the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway, saying First Amendment protections for newsworthy content don't apply to images of the brothers he broadcast.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. McLaughlin tentatively sided with Deepak and Satish Kalpoe on one of their many claims arising from a Sept. 15, 2005, episode of “The Dr. Phil Show” that was devoted to the Holloway case. Deepak was shown in a hidden-camera interview with a private investigator working for the show. Footage of both brothers being released from custody in Aruba was also aired.

When a broadcast “includes recklessly false statements, does the newsworthiness exemption exempt the entire matter? My tentative is that it doesn't,” Judge McLaughlin said at a hearing on Dr. Phil's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

McGraw and co-defendants CBS Television Distribution Group and Peteski Productions Inc. had argued that the footage of the Kalpoes could not be carved out as actionable when the brothers were not alleging the entire broadcast was false.

"If [the Kalpoes'] argument were to be true, the newsworthiness exception to a misappropriation [of likeness] claim would be totally vitiated, it just wouldn't exist,” McGraw's attorney Nancy Hamilton said

“In every single instance, every single defamation case, any time anyone is represented in the press, on television or otherwise, they would likewise have a misappropriation claim," she continued. "That's just not the law."

On another of the Kalpoes' claims, Judge McLaughlin tentatively ruled they could not hold the defendants liable for misrepresentations that the private investigator, Jamie Skeeters, allegedly made to Deepak Kalpoe to secure the interview with him. Another judge had previously dismissed Deepak Kalpoe's claims against Skeeters, who died in 2007.

 

“The Dr. Phil Show” billed the Sept. 15, 2005, episode as an exclusive featuring “new evidence in the Natalee Holloway mystery.” The Kalpoes filed their suit in December 2006, alleging multiple claims including libel, slander, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of their “right to exclusive ownership and control of their likeness and story regarding Natalee Holloway's disappearance.”

In court papers, the defendants said the publicity rights claim should be tossed under the exception for publication of matters of public interest because the Kalpoes had not alleged “the subject broadcast was 'entirely false' ... or that Deepak never met with Skeeters.”

“Indeed, the [first amended complaint] states that Natalee Holloway's disappearance received extensive media attention throughout the summer of 2005 and that plaintiffs along with Joran van der Sloot were targeted as persons of interest,” they added.

But Judge McLaughlin said at Tuesday's hearing that he had not found any conclusive case law and he thought the defendants should not be excused from liability "just because the broadcast also includes newsworthy items.”

 
Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44721



« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2013, 06:22:37 AM »


Please light a candle remembering Natalee and her family's quest for answers.  Since two were created, you may use one or both.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=NAH

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=Nat%27s


 



Done!    an angelic monkey
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Bearlyhere
Asst Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17306



« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2013, 04:45:27 AM »

http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/471603/dr-phil-unlikely-to-duck-liability-over-holloway-show

Dr. Phil Unlikely To Duck Liability Over Holloway Show

By Matthew Heller 0 Comments

Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 4:44 PM ET) -- A California state judge indicated Tuesday he will deny television personality Dr. Phil McGraw's bid to escape a publicity rights claim brought by two brothers suspected in the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway, saying First Amendment protections for newsworthy content don't apply to images of the brothers he broadcast.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. McLaughlin tentatively sided with Deepak and Satish Kalpoe on one of their many claims arising from a Sept. 15, 2005, episode of “The Dr. Phil Show” that was devoted to the Holloway case. Deepak was shown in a hidden-camera interview with a private investigator working for the show. Footage of both brothers being released from custody in Aruba was also aired.

When a broadcast “includes recklessly false statements, does the newsworthiness exemption exempt the entire matter? My tentative is that it doesn't,” Judge McLaughlin said at a hearing on Dr. Phil's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

McGraw and co-defendants CBS Television Distribution Group and Peteski Productions Inc. had argued that the footage of the Kalpoes could not be carved out as actionable when the brothers were not alleging the entire broadcast was false.

"If [the Kalpoes'] argument were to be true, the newsworthiness exception to a misappropriation [of likeness] claim would be totally vitiated, it just wouldn't exist,” McGraw's attorney Nancy Hamilton said

“In every single instance, every single defamation case, any time anyone is represented in the press, on television or otherwise, they would likewise have a misappropriation claim," she continued. "That's just not the law."

On another of the Kalpoes' claims, Judge McLaughlin tentatively ruled they could not hold the defendants liable for misrepresentations that the private investigator, Jamie Skeeters, allegedly made to Deepak Kalpoe to secure the interview with him. Another judge had previously dismissed Deepak Kalpoe's claims against Skeeters, who died in 2007.

 

“The Dr. Phil Show” billed the Sept. 15, 2005, episode as an exclusive featuring “new evidence in the Natalee Holloway mystery.” The Kalpoes filed their suit in December 2006, alleging multiple claims including libel, slander, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of their “right to exclusive ownership and control of their likeness and story regarding Natalee Holloway's disappearance.”

In court papers, the defendants said the publicity rights claim should be tossed under the exception for publication of matters of public interest because the Kalpoes had not alleged “the subject broadcast was 'entirely false' ... or that Deepak never met with Skeeters.”

“Indeed, the [first amended complaint] states that Natalee Holloway's disappearance received extensive media attention throughout the summer of 2005 and that plaintiffs along with Joran van der Sloot were targeted as persons of interest,” they added.

But Judge McLaughlin said at Tuesday's hearing that he had not found any conclusive case law and he thought the defendants should not be excused from liability "just because the broadcast also includes newsworthy items.”

 

What does this mean?  Is it that what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something in general that should pertain to everyone or what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something pertaining to what was actually happened on his show with the Kalpoes in particular?

I know that isn't clear, but I am not sure how to clear it up.  What I am trying to ask is did the judge look at the evidence and say Dr. Phil should not have done x to the Kalpoes in particular or is the judge saying no one, generally speaking, should ever get out of a lawsuit using this reasoning?

Does this mean that Dr. Phil would be better off settling with Kalpoes or is the judge saying by restricting their claims, it sets a bad precedence in general, but it has nothing to do with the way he is going to rule in the case?

I have tried  three different ways above to ask the same question and it still sounds unclear.  I know what I am asking, I just don't know how to ask it.  Can anyone help me out here or is my question still as clear as mud?

One more time, is he saying:

Stop trying to wiggle out of it using that reasoning and fight like a man or what you actually did to the Kalpoes was wrong?

Logged

There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.
Time spent with monkeys is never wasted. 
I believe in miracles!
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2013, 07:53:05 AM »

http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/471603/dr-phil-unlikely-to-duck-liability-over-holloway-show

Dr. Phil Unlikely To Duck Liability Over Holloway Show

By Matthew Heller 0 Comments

Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 4:44 PM ET) -- A California state judge indicated Tuesday he will deny television personality Dr. Phil McGraw's bid to escape a publicity rights claim brought by two brothers suspected in the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway, saying First Amendment protections for newsworthy content don't apply to images of the brothers he broadcast.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. McLaughlin tentatively sided with Deepak and Satish Kalpoe on one of their many claims arising from a Sept. 15, 2005, episode of “The Dr. Phil Show” that was devoted to the Holloway case. Deepak was shown in a hidden-camera interview with a private investigator working for the show. Footage of both brothers being released from custody in Aruba was also aired.

When a broadcast “includes recklessly false statements, does the newsworthiness exemption exempt the entire matter? My tentative is that it doesn't,” Judge McLaughlin said at a hearing on Dr. Phil's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

McGraw and co-defendants CBS Television Distribution Group and Peteski Productions Inc. had argued that the footage of the Kalpoes could not be carved out as actionable when the brothers were not alleging the entire broadcast was false.

"If [the Kalpoes'] argument were to be true, the newsworthiness exception to a misappropriation [of likeness] claim would be totally vitiated, it just wouldn't exist,” McGraw's attorney Nancy Hamilton said

“In every single instance, every single defamation case, any time anyone is represented in the press, on television or otherwise, they would likewise have a misappropriation claim," she continued. "That's just not the law."

On another of the Kalpoes' claims, Judge McLaughlin tentatively ruled they could not hold the defendants liable for misrepresentations that the private investigator, Jamie Skeeters, allegedly made to Deepak Kalpoe to secure the interview with him. Another judge had previously dismissed Deepak Kalpoe's claims against Skeeters, who died in 2007.

 

“The Dr. Phil Show” billed the Sept. 15, 2005, episode as an exclusive featuring “new evidence in the Natalee Holloway mystery.” The Kalpoes filed their suit in December 2006, alleging multiple claims including libel, slander, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of their “right to exclusive ownership and control of their likeness and story regarding Natalee Holloway's disappearance.”

In court papers, the defendants said the publicity rights claim should be tossed under the exception for publication of matters of public interest because the Kalpoes had not alleged “the subject broadcast was 'entirely false' ... or that Deepak never met with Skeeters.”

“Indeed, the [first amended complaint] states that Natalee Holloway's disappearance received extensive media attention throughout the summer of 2005 and that plaintiffs along with Joran van der Sloot were targeted as persons of interest,” they added.

But Judge McLaughlin said at Tuesday's hearing that he had not found any conclusive case law and he thought the defendants should not be excused from liability "just because the broadcast also includes newsworthy items.”

 

What does this mean?  Is it that what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something in general that should pertain to everyone or what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something pertaining to what was actually happened on his show with the Kalpoes in particular?

I know that isn't clear, but I am not sure how to clear it up.  What I am trying to ask is did the judge look at the evidence and say Dr. Phil should not have done x to the Kalpoes in particular or is the judge saying no one, generally speaking, should ever get out of a lawsuit using this reasoning?

Does this mean that Dr. Phil would be better off settling with Kalpoes or is the judge saying by restricting their claims, it sets a bad precedence in general, but it has nothing to do with the way he is going to rule in the case?

I have tried  three different ways above to ask the same question and it still sounds unclear.  I know what I am asking, I just don't know how to ask it.  Can anyone help me out here or is my question still as clear as mud?

One more time, is he saying:

Stop trying to wiggle out of it using that reasoning and fight like a man or what you actually did to the Kalpoes was wrong?



The judge is only speaking as to the law in general -- not the specifics of this case.
Logged

billb's daughter
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1956

No Body...No Tourism aruba! Bring Natalee Home!


« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2013, 01:55:46 AM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 
Logged
cadillac
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1333



« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2013, 07:40:09 AM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 

Prayers to your family from the monkey family.

Cadillac
Logged
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44721



« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2013, 08:05:43 AM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 

I'm so sorry.   
   Rest in peace billb.   an angelic monkey


Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2013, 08:59:12 AM »

I'm so sorry to hear this.  He always fought for Natalee.  Prayers for you family.  May he rest in peace.
Logged
Bearlyhere
Asst Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17306



« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2013, 09:26:30 AM »

http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/471603/dr-phil-unlikely-to-duck-liability-over-holloway-show

Dr. Phil Unlikely To Duck Liability Over Holloway Show

By Matthew Heller 0 Comments

Law360, Los Angeles (September 10, 2013, 4:44 PM ET) -- A California state judge indicated Tuesday he will deny television personality Dr. Phil McGraw's bid to escape a publicity rights claim brought by two brothers suspected in the high-profile disappearance of Natalee Holloway, saying First Amendment protections for newsworthy content don't apply to images of the brothers he broadcast.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. McLaughlin tentatively sided with Deepak and Satish Kalpoe on one of their many claims arising from a Sept. 15, 2005, episode of “The Dr. Phil Show” that was devoted to the Holloway case. Deepak was shown in a hidden-camera interview with a private investigator working for the show. Footage of both brothers being released from custody in Aruba was also aired.

When a broadcast “includes recklessly false statements, does the newsworthiness exemption exempt the entire matter? My tentative is that it doesn't,” Judge McLaughlin said at a hearing on Dr. Phil's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

McGraw and co-defendants CBS Television Distribution Group and Peteski Productions Inc. had argued that the footage of the Kalpoes could not be carved out as actionable when the brothers were not alleging the entire broadcast was false.

"If [the Kalpoes'] argument were to be true, the newsworthiness exception to a misappropriation [of likeness] claim would be totally vitiated, it just wouldn't exist,” McGraw's attorney Nancy Hamilton said

“In every single instance, every single defamation case, any time anyone is represented in the press, on television or otherwise, they would likewise have a misappropriation claim," she continued. "That's just not the law."

On another of the Kalpoes' claims, Judge McLaughlin tentatively ruled they could not hold the defendants liable for misrepresentations that the private investigator, Jamie Skeeters, allegedly made to Deepak Kalpoe to secure the interview with him. Another judge had previously dismissed Deepak Kalpoe's claims against Skeeters, who died in 2007.

 

“The Dr. Phil Show” billed the Sept. 15, 2005, episode as an exclusive featuring “new evidence in the Natalee Holloway mystery.” The Kalpoes filed their suit in December 2006, alleging multiple claims including libel, slander, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of their “right to exclusive ownership and control of their likeness and story regarding Natalee Holloway's disappearance.”

In court papers, the defendants said the publicity rights claim should be tossed under the exception for publication of matters of public interest because the Kalpoes had not alleged “the subject broadcast was 'entirely false' ... or that Deepak never met with Skeeters.”

“Indeed, the [first amended complaint] states that Natalee Holloway's disappearance received extensive media attention throughout the summer of 2005 and that plaintiffs along with Joran van der Sloot were targeted as persons of interest,” they added.

But Judge McLaughlin said at Tuesday's hearing that he had not found any conclusive case law and he thought the defendants should not be excused from liability "just because the broadcast also includes newsworthy items.”

 

What does this mean?  Is it that what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something in general that should pertain to everyone or what Dr. Phil is trying to do is not okay because of something pertaining to what was actually happened on his show with the Kalpoes in particular?

I know that isn't clear, but I am not sure how to clear it up.  What I am trying to ask is did the judge look at the evidence and say Dr. Phil should not have done x to the Kalpoes in particular or is the judge saying no one, generally speaking, should ever get out of a lawsuit using this reasoning?

Does this mean that Dr. Phil would be better off settling with Kalpoes or is the judge saying by restricting their claims, it sets a bad precedence in general, but it has nothing to do with the way he is going to rule in the case?

I have tried  three different ways above to ask the same question and it still sounds unclear.  I know what I am asking, I just don't know how to ask it.  Can anyone help me out here or is my question still as clear as mud?

One more time, is he saying:

Stop trying to wiggle out of it using that reasoning and fight like a man or what you actually did to the Kalpoes was wrong?



The judge is only speaking as to the law in general -- not the specifics of this case.

Thanks, Wreck.  That's what I thought it said, but I was confused by the headline.
     


Logged

There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.
Time spent with monkeys is never wasted. 
I believe in miracles!
Bearlyhere
Asst Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17306



« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2013, 09:33:06 AM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 

My heart goes out to you and your family and all who loved billb.  Thanks so much for letting us know.  Prayers for all of you.  Natalee has another angel leading us towards the truth, so we can bring her home to her loving family.

    an angelic monkey

Logged

There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world.
Time spent with monkeys is never wasted. 
I believe in miracles!
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2013, 07:30:44 PM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 
Wow -- I'm so saddened to hear of this! There are not a lot of guys here - "Keep The Faith" and I in particular will really miss him. My sincerest condolences to your family.
Logged

grace-land
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18350



« Reply #59 on: October 02, 2013, 07:53:49 PM »

billb passed away peacefully 30 Sept 2013.....his heart was always with Natalee, Beth, and Dave..........
Loved you Monkeys....
His daughter.....
 

I'm so sorry.  Sending my deepest sympathy to you and your family.  May God grant billb eternal peace and everlasting joy.
He was always here--working for justice for Natalee and her family.
He will be missed. 
Rest in Peace, dear billb.  an angelic monkey 
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 2.797 seconds with 19 queries.