Natalee Case Discussion #685 10/7 - 10/14/2007

[Ree]

Thanks Wreck and Buckeye...I guess i don't understand their laws!

David Kock also says in the lastest filing that Deepak's old lawyer has the early documents. Kock states that Deepak owes him money,so under Aruban law he(the old lawyer) gets to keep them. IIRC Deepak changed lawyers as it was a conflict of interest for him and Satish to have the same lawyer. Does anyone know if this is still Satish's lawyer?

The reason I'm asking is if this fella is no longer Satish's lawyer the CA court may not receive any of Satish' or Deepaks early documents. Not sure if this would include phone or computer records or just PVs!

I don't see how owing the previous lawyer money would aid in their defense for not producing the documents.  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

[wreck]

Wreck,

Are you kidding me?    And we thought no jury was bad enough.  I can't imagine the guilt or innocence being placed in the hands of one person like that.  Well, that certainly is a powerful position to have.

And they post on the front page of news publications bragging about how they don't answer to anybody, etc.

So in this instance, we have a friend and co-worker of Paulus with the power to declare innocence.  Huuumm wonder what the outcome of that will be!   

More POWER for Paulus if he had achieved that position.  Could he reapply and eventually rise to that power?

Remember -- I said "Apparently". Ramm says this is not true. Kock is the one saying there is an "acquittal/prosecute" option.

[dennisintn]

  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?
[/quote]

lol, that's a novel idea.  i wonder how quick the suit would be dropped and lawyers and plaintiffs start running for the exits if phil's attorneys actually did that.  they'd have to know there was something really important in the information for that to happen.
dennisintn

[wreck]

  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

lol, that's a novel idea.  i wonder how quick the suit would be dropped and lawyers and plaintiffs start running for the exits if phil's attorneys actually did that.  they'd have to know there was something really important in the information for that to happen.
dennisintn
[/quote]

Didn't PAULUS hire the original Kalpoe attorneys??????? Did PAULUS not pay the attorneys????

[dennisintn]

power?
[/quote]

Remember -- I said "Apparently". Ramm says this is not true. Kock is the one saying there is an "acquittal/prosecute" option.
[/quote]

hopefully this is just a matter of semantics.  i've heard jossy and at least one attorney on the island say there was no statute of limitations on murder.  imo, kock is saying something like "prosecut/or drop as suspect".  my old and male memory tells me that if they're dropped as suspects and some new evidence is found or new information is found, the former suspects can be "new suspects"  subject to the same rules as applied the first time they were arrested.  again, this is an old male memory and subject to corrections.
dennisintn

[MumInOhio]

Thanks Wreck and Buckeye...I guess i don't understand their laws!

David Kock also says in the lastest filing that Deepak's old lawyer has the early documents. Kock states that Deepak owes him money,so under Aruban law he(the old lawyer) gets to keep them. IIRC Deepak changed lawyers as it was a conflict of interest for him and Satish to have the same lawyer. Does anyone know if this is still Satish's lawyer?

The reason I'm asking is if this fella is no longer Satish's lawyer the CA court may not receive any of Satish' or Deepaks early documents. Not sure if this would include phone or computer records or just PVs!

I don't see how owing the previous lawyer money would aid in their defense for not producing the documents.  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

Crossed my mind too about Dr Phil paying the bill. I tend to believe its all garbage...though awful convenient way for Deepak not to have the documents. If this and the part about the prosecutor acqitting is not true then how can any self respecting lawyer put it in a filing?

[Anna]

  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

lol, that's a novel idea.  i wonder how quick the suit would be dropped and lawyers and plaintiffs start running for the exits if phil's attorneys actually did that.  they'd have to know there was something really important in the information for that to happen.
dennisintn

Didn't PAULUS hire the original Kalpoe attorneys??????? Did PAULUS not pay the attorneys????
[/quote]

We have been told the Sloots are unbelievably cheap but this takes the cake, doesn't it?  I guess Paulus counts making somebody an appointment as "getting them an attorney"?

I don't think the attorney would be allowed to withhold documents in this country but that's a moot point since this is not under U.S. law.

Or is it?

Anyway, why can't the Kalpoes get the docs directly from ALE again?

.

[MumInOhio]

  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

lol, that's a novel idea.  i wonder how quick the suit would be dropped and lawyers and plaintiffs start running for the exits if phil's attorneys actually did that.  they'd have to know there was something really important in the information for that to happen.
dennisintn

Didn't PAULUS hire the original Kalpoe attorneys??????? Did PAULUS not pay the attorneys????
[/quote]


That's what I thought too!  If this is the case and what Kock says is true then they just switch lawyers, without paying them and then the suspects don't have access to their documents. And for sure Paulus would know this! Still doesn't mean it will fly in a CA court though, but it may stall long enough for an acquittal in the case!

Anna, just caught your post...I'm pretty sure ALE doesn't want them turned over to a US court. They'll say the case is not closed!

[klaasend]

Posted by MF at RU:

MF Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:30 pm   
12/31/07

A court decision on the request made back earlier this year to either close the investigation on the Kalpoe Brothers or charge them with anything.

In September it was proven that the investigation was still going on and that a decision on who and why to charge could have damage this.

The judge decided to wait till the last day of 2007 to make a decision.  

[Slogger]

  There is no disagreement that I am aware of for not paying the first attorney.  Therefore, they should be told pay up and put up or shut up.  Wonder what they'd say if Dr Phil agreed to pay that bill, if they'd pony up the documents?

lol, that's a novel idea.  i wonder how quick the suit would be dropped and lawyers and plaintiffs start running for the exits if phil's attorneys actually did that.  they'd have to know there was something really important in the information for that to happen.
dennisintn

Didn't PAULUS hire the original Kalpoe attorneys??????? Did PAULUS not pay the attorneys????

That's what I thought too!  If this is the case and what Kock says is true then they just switch lawyers, without paying them and then the suspects don't have access to their documents. And for sure Paulus would know this! Still doesn't mean it will fly in a CA court though, but it may stall long enough for an acquittal in the case!

Anna, just caught your post...I'm pretty sure ALE doesn't want them turned over to a US court. They'll say the case is not closed!
[/quote]

Who was that first attorney...Rudy Oomen? 

Whoever the first attorney, how convenient it is that PVDS gets the attorney, the Prosecutor makes 2K have separate attorneys, and now this new (to us) glitch.

If you were poor on Aruba, get an attorney, can't pay...then you can't prove your innocence because you can't get the documents.

It looks a lot like a setup.

[klaasend]

Per MF there will be a new spokesperson for the prosecutor's office:

MF Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:53 pm   
Vivian van der Biezen

"I woul like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the good cooperation I have received during the period I worked as a spokesperson and substitute spokesperson. This period was a very interesting one and very dynamic, in which I learned a lot and will remember it with pride and satisfaction."

Vivian v/d Biezen worked at the Prosecutors Office for over 11 years and beginning this monday will be working in another department, the Council of Recommendation; Raad van Advies. 

[MumInOhio]

Slogger...Sunfreak's Aruban Who'sWho lists Kock, Oomen and Offringa as Deepak's lawyers...not sure who was the first one.

If you want to read what Kock has to say about him turning over the docs it's on page 6 of the Dr Phil filing and about the former lawyer is page 12. It's the first link on what Klaas posted on Oct 11th.(Important Case Docs-Dr Phil)

[NYC_lover]

Per MF there will be a new spokesperson for the prosecutor's office:

MF Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:53 pm   
Vivian van der Biezen

"I woul like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the good cooperation I have received during the period I worked as a spokesperson and substitute spokesperson. This period was a very interesting one and very dynamic, in which I learned a lot and will remember it with pride and satisfaction."

Vivian v/d Biezen worked at the Prosecutors Office for over 11 years and beginning this monday will be working in another department, the Council of Recommendation; Raad van Advies. 

Council of Recommendation: Raad van Advies, never heard about this function from the Prosecutors Office/OM.
Probably give this function/work advices to the judge or prosecutors. Is that correct?

[MumInOhio]

Here are all the recent documents filed in the Kalpoe vs. Dr. Phil case:


http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/Kalpoe_v_McGraw/1004def_motion.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/Kalpoe_v_McGraw/1004pltfs_declaration.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/Kalpoe_v_McGraw/1004pltfs_motion.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/Kalpoe_v_McGraw/1004pltfs_substitution.pdf 

Here are the links that Klaas posted the other day.

First one pages 6 and page 12 address the documents being turned over(OR NOT)

[KarmaRoundUp]

power?

Remember -- I said "Apparently". Ramm says this is not true. Kock is the one saying there is an "acquittal/prosecute" option.
[/quote]

hopefully this is just a matter of semantics.  i've heard jossy and at least one attorney on the island say there was no statute of limitations on murder.  imo, kock is saying something like "prosecut/or drop as suspect".  my old and male memory tells me that if they're dropped as suspects and some new evidence is found or new information is found, the former suspects can be "new suspects"  subject to the same rules as applied the first time they were arrested.  again, this is an old male memory and subject to corrections.
dennisintn
[/quote]
I've heard the same,no statute of limitations on murder.I don't think double jeopardy applies either as J2K+P+others have never been charged with a crime.For this to actually go to trial in aruba,wouldn't they have to be charged first?

[Anna]

But how about accidental death that occurs in the commission of another crime?

While this is generally ruled as murder in this country, I doubt it is under Dutch system, might be something much lesser. 

So if it were to be deemed a lesser crime, would all that still apply?

Guido's cousin is right, I don't understand.

.

[Slogger]

Slogger...Sunfreak's Aruban Who'sWho lists Kock, Oomen and Offringa as Deepak's lawyers...not sure who was the first one.

If you want to read what Kock has to say about him turning over the docs it's on page 6 of the Dr Phil filing and about the former lawyer is page 12. It's the first link on what Klaas posted on Oct 11th.(Important Case Docs-Dr Phil)

Thank you, Mum.  I haven't read Sunfreak's Aruban Who'sWho list.  Where would I find it...in the important docs?

I have read the filing, mentioned above.  I anticipate Ks' US lawyers will practice begging skills by the end of the next hearing.  They could add some meaningless documents in an effort to persuade the court of sincere efforts.

 

[Observer]

Hi Slogger

Here is the link for the Aruban Who's WHo thread

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=203.0

[Slogger]

Hi Slogger

Here is the link for the Aruban Who's WHo thread

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=203.0

Thank you, *******!   I'll bookmark it, and go read.

Your Welcome! Good to see you!
*******

[Observer]

Tonight is the "VIP Party Affair" at the Van Rijn's Old address(We dont know if it was sold) Who is on the invitation only guest list? Would you spend up to 25k for a week here?

http://clubarias.com/testimonials6.html
Choose your words carefully fella A club started by a local guy?
http://clubarias.com/testimonials8.html
What kind of place is this?