Natalee Case Discussion #789 1/1/09 - 1/3/09

[ldstlou]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

there are two separate issues here, screen shots and the actual footage. Sceen shots were sent daily as intructed by the FBI agents in charge, and the footage was turned over at the first opportunity.

[Tamikosmom]

LDSTLOU - if Joran van der Sloot emailed me and confessed to Natalee dying and his disposing of her body, would it bother you if I posted the jest of that email in the forum?  Just so people could have a good idea what was sent to me?  Or would you think it more important to honor a private email and not tell anyone about it?

I don't see that Caps was posting any confession. Kermit says she is not allowed to post it and yet she posts it. And no, if I had an e-mail from Joran confessing I would not post it at SM, I would turn it over to the FBI who I am sure would tell me to keep my mouth shut about it and I would keep my mouth shut about it.

Which Kyle DID NOT do.  He posted on a private forum his concerns instead of giving the information to the FBI.

that is not true. All footage was turned over to the FBI. Do you wonder why JQK, Tim Miller, Dateline the FBI and the Family are not speaking out about the Persistence? Could it be because it was all done on the up and up? Kyle also asked that his posts not be made public. I believe Jen's letter said they sought legal advice and were told not to publish his posts...am I wrong?

Yes, I believe you are WRONG:

1.  From Kermit's and Kyle's posts the information was turned over to the FBI and JQK because neither Kyle or John Silvetti did.

2.  I believe Jen stated they were told to stay away from Kyle, nothing about NOT publishing his posts.  I think it was Kyle that threatened people if they published them.

The footage WAS turned over to the FBI immediately. You do our FBI a disservice imho by thinking they walked away without it.

Jen also stated I believe, that they had compiled their findings, when Kyle came back he asked that they not post the piece they had put together because they had taken speculation and turned it into facts and had taken his words out of context. So why haven't the Freebirds published the material that Kermit brought here to SM? Why the need to leave the Freebirds to post the material? Am I wrong and the Freebirds are publishing their findings on the Persistence?

Lou ... you are wrong.  The ROV images already have a copyright.

The Natalee's Freebirds' motivations are not self-serving.  At all times Justice for Natalee Holloway and ... closure for her long-suffering family has been where it was at.  The time and effort put into research to produce documents ... to expose the corrupt Aruban investigation that has prevented justice from prevailing from the getgo ... has been a labor of love.

I should know.  I was a Natalee's Freebird prior to making the decision to fly the coop and ...  focus on the SM Natalee forum ... an open forum.

Janet
________

Kermit
Re: Natalee Case Discussion #786 12/17/08 -
« Reply #544 on: December 19, 2008, 06:52:12 PM »

PERHAPS KYLE VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHT HIMSELF

Kyle said: "She [BETH] needs to know exactly what we found in the proper timing. The way to do that would be through Tim Trahan and I. I can arrange any meeting with him. He represents the owner and the rights to the data, in this case, Louis S. I have everything but I don't want to go around him for chain of custody reasons, professional courtesy, and friendship."
 
The next step:
I will soon propose a meeting with Beth and other family members, myself, Tim Trahan, Peter DeVries, and whomever else necessary to go over the ROV video, contents, and case status. I would like a couple people very familiar with the case documents also present to help connect dots during the meeting. I would prefer meeting towards the end of April or mid-May to allow adequate time for things to shake themselves out if is going to. If necessary, I have an ABC (20/20) and CBS (early show) film crew ready and willing to take part in such a meeting should it require press coverage. I've already had a meeting with ABC about this and they are "definitely interested" at the executive level. We met in mid-Feb about this already. The question becomes timing, who needs to be there, and whether or not it's covered by the press. I prefer not, but it may be useful. DeVries doesn't need to be there in my opinion but he's good for ratings and helps ABC be cooperative if needed.

He certainly is a planner
[edited to protect the individual] needs to be called and ask to request the removal of the post by either her
or PI to Klaas. 

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=4246.msg592533;topicseen#msg592533

[Keepthefaith]

Yeah, and I keep waiting to hear those tapes.

You are aware that Jaime made a trip over to the Wyndham around 11:00 pm on 5/30/05...just as Andre says Joran and Guido walked 'outside'?????????

And Jaime lineage is from where?

Jaime says he went to pick up his dad?Did his dad work that night?

Why, Colombia, of course.

Jaime says he went to pick up his dad?Did his dad work that night?

Well, according to jaime he did.  To me, the coincidence is less likely that Jaime would be ariving at the Wyndham at the same time Joran and Guido were leaving the casino area.  Joran claims they went over to the Aruba Grand to cash in chips from earlier that night.  They do not go back into the Wyndham.  The migrate over to the Radisson.  Andre joins them there later and then Deepak shows up.

Joran admits to calling Jaime on the 29th, just before he called Deepak.  Jaime says Joran called him between 4 and 7.  Jaime says he may have missed a call from Joran later because he was sleeping.  Maybe....maybe not.

Is Guido related to Wever Marine Aruba??

[ldstlou]

LDSTLOU - if Joran van der Sloot emailed me and confessed to Natalee dying and his disposing of her body, would it bother you if I posted the jest of that email in the forum?  Just so people could have a good idea what was sent to me?  Or would you think it more important to honor a private email and not tell anyone about it?

I don't see that Caps was posting any confession. Kermit says she is not allowed to post it and yet she posts it. And no, if I had an e-mail from Joran confessing I would not post it at SM, I would turn it over to the FBI who I am sure would tell me to keep my mouth shut about it and I would keep my mouth shut about it.

Which Kyle DID NOT do.  He posted on a private forum his concerns instead of giving the information to the FBI.

that is not true. All footage was turned over to the FBI. Do you wonder why JQK, Tim Miller, Dateline the FBI and the Family are not speaking out about the Persistence? Could it be because it was all done on the up and up? Kyle also asked that his posts not be made public. I believe Jen's letter said they sought legal advice and were told not to publish his posts...am I wrong?

Yes, I believe you are WRONG:

1.  From Kermit's and Kyle's posts the information was turned over to the FBI and JQK because neither Kyle or John Silvetti did.

2.  I believe Jen stated they were told to stay away from Kyle, nothing about NOT publishing his posts.  I think it was Kyle that threatened people if they published them.

The footage WAS turned over to the FBI immediately. You do our FBI a disservice imho by thinking they walked away without it.

Jen also stated I believe, that they had compiled their findings, when Kyle came back he asked that they not post the piece they had put together because they had taken speculation and turned it into facts and had taken his words out of context. So why haven't the Freebirds published the material that Kermit brought here to SM? Why the need to leave the Freebirds to post the material? Am I wrong and the Freebirds are publishing their findings on the Persistence?

Lou ... you are wrong.  The ROV images already have a copyright.

The Natalee's Freebirds' motivations are not self-serving.  At all times Justice for Natalee Holloway and ... closure for her long-suffering family has been where it was at.  The time and effort put into research to produce documents ... to expose the corrupt Aruban investigation that has prevented justice from prevailing from the getgo ... has been a labor of love.

I should know.  I was a Natalee's Freebird prior to making the decision to fly the coop and ...  focus on the SM Natalee forum ... an open forum.

Janet
________

Kermit
Re: Natalee Case Discussion #786 12/17/08 -
« Reply #544 on: December 19, 2008, 06:52:12 PM »

PERHAPS KYLE VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHT HIMSELF

Kyle said: "She [BETH] needs to know exactly what we found in the proper timing. The way to do that would be through Tim Trahan and I. I can arrange any meeting with him. He represents the owner and the rights to the data, in this case, Louis S. I have everything but I don't want to go around him for chain of custody reasons, professional courtesy, and friendship."
 
The next step:
I will soon propose a meeting with Beth and other family members, myself, Tim Trahan, Peter DeVries, and whomever else necessary to go over the ROV video, contents, and case status. I would like a couple people very familiar with the case documents also present to help connect dots during the meeting. I would prefer meeting towards the end of April or mid-May to allow adequate time for things to shake themselves out if is going to. If necessary, I have an ABC (20/20) and CBS (early show) film crew ready and willing to take part in such a meeting should it require press coverage. I've already had a meeting with ABC about this and they are "definitely interested" at the executive level. We met in mid-Feb about this already. The question becomes timing, who needs to be there, and whether or not it's covered by the press. I prefer not, but it may be useful. DeVries doesn't need to be there in my opinion but he's good for ratings and helps ABC be cooperative if needed.

He certainly is a planner
[edited to protect the individual] needs to be called and ask to request the removal of the post by either her
or PI to Klaas. 

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=4246.msg592533;topicseen#msg592533

See Janet, I don't see a cover-up. I see Kyle disclosing everything. Where is the cover-up?

[klaasend]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Then how can you say immediately?

[ldstlou]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Then how can you say immediately?

Two issues, screen shots sent the day they were taken, footage at the first opportunity. Immediately as in not months later...sorry I did not clarify my meaning of immediately.

[Keepthefaith]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Then how can you say immediately?

Two issues, screen shots sent the day they were taken, footage at the first opportunity. Immediately as in not months later...sorry I did not clarify my meaning of immediately.

??????

[truthseeker2]

Jaime says he went to pick up his dad?Did his dad work that night?

Well, according to jaime he did.  To me, the coincidence is less likely that Jaime would be ariving at the Wyndham at the same time Joran and Guido were leaving the casino area.  Joran claims they went over to the Aruba Grand to cash in chips from earlier that night.  They do not go back into the Wyndham.  The migrate over to the Radisson.  Andre joins them there later and then Deepak shows up.

Joran admits to calling Jaime on the 29th, just before he called Deepak.  Jaime says Joran called him between 4 and 7.  Jaime says he may have missed a call from Joran later because he was sleeping.  Maybe....maybe not.

Is Guido related to Wever Marine Aruba??
[/quote]

LOL.  I think a lot of people have looked at that, but I have not found a direct connection.  Maybe someone else here has.

[2NJSons_Mom]

Hi San and AZSunny - Happy New Years to you, and to all the monkeys.

 

Happy New Year, Sleuth.

[Sleuth]

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Ldtstlou - First you say they were turned over immediately, then you say Kyle can't say for sure - which is it?   If Kyle can't say for sure, how can you say they were turned over, and that they were turned over immediately?  What are you basing the "immediately" on?

I'm asking because you sounded so definite at first, like you personally knew they were turned over immediately, but then shortly after it it sounds like it is just your opinion.   Like Klaas, I would like to know a date as to when the January 7th pictures that Kyle had were turned over to the FBI.

It is not a matter of "he wasn't responsible" - ANYONE that has information should turn it over - I am sure the FBI would much rather get the same thing twice than not at all.  For example,  I remember a time back in 2005 where Klaas and Hammer were working on gathering some information to turn over to the family.  I informed them of the same information that I had already turned over and what I had - I am sure it would not have deterred them from their project, because perhaps they had something additional or a different aspect from their research.

Check every detail, Check it twice.

[ldstlou]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Then how can you say immediately?

Two issues, screen shots sent the day they were taken, footage at the first opportunity. Immediately as in not months later...sorry I did not clarify my meaning of immediately.

??????

How am I supposed to answer  "???" Can you clarify?

[Keepthefaith]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Then how can you say immediately?

Two issues, screen shots sent the day they were taken, footage at the first opportunity. Immediately as in not months later...sorry I did not clarify my meaning of immediately.

??????

How am I supposed to answer  "???" Can you clarify?

What's the date he turned them over.M/D/Y.Please clarify a date.If you don't know,Say "I don't know?"

[hotping]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

there are two separate issues here, screen shots and the actual footage. Sceen shots were sent daily as intructed by the FBI agents in charge, and the footage was turned over at the first opportunity.

Screen shots sent daily as instructed by the FBI Agents in charge? I did not know that the FBI was involved?   

[Sleuth]

Hey 2NJ - I hope 2009 treats you well, and that Natalee's family finds the closure they need.

Bye for now monkeys....

[Tamikosmom]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

I believe that justice for Natalee Holloway and ...  closure for her family dictated that Kyle Kingman had at the very least a moral responsibility to immediately share with the family and FBI ... upon his arrival to the States ... his concerns encompassing the John S./ALE connection in regards to the discovery of the trap/cage and ... the recovery and retrieval of the contents.

Lou ... think about it.  According to Kyle Kingman in his own words ... there is a good possibility that Natalee Holloway's remains were in that cage/trap.  From the perspective of a mother ... please put yourself in Beth Holloway's place.

Janet

+++++


KYLE KINGMAN'S POSTS TO A PRIVATE FORUM

Kyle: John is not a believer in the trap. He took ALE's word as gospel that it wasn't case related, yet never studied the videos or bothered to inquire further. He had plans on doing business with Aruba and in S. America and he didn't want to hurt any feelings by talks hinting at lack of complete trust and friendship.

Kyle: Notice the end of the skirt is an identical match to the 90 degree angle in the sand. I believe her left arm was outstretched with her legs slightly bent. I did not edit the legs. I believe the tarp was placed over her and tucked around her, or perhaps tied down. I believe there are several rocks laying on the sand which were placed on the tarp, or inside the tarp over her body which explains their unusual location. Either way, the proportions appear promising.

Kyle: I took the proportions of the body form from the head, to shoulder, to a 90 degree angle which I believed to be the hem line of Natalee's skirt. I then took those proportions and matched them to the photo of Natalee with what she was last seen wearing. The proportions matched within an inch from head, to shoulder, to skirt line. Based on this comparison and with what we believed we saw in the Dec 29th video, Tim Miller contacted the family and told them the 99.9% comment. I told Tim not to do anything until we have forensic results back after the site is processed. Jan 7th we sampled the contents and in my opinion we found the skirt under the sand along with the other items The blue fabric was found right where the skirt is pictured. If it isn't her, it will forever haunt me as a major cosmic WTF.

[ldstlou]

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

Ldtstlou - First you say they were turned over immediately, then you say Kyle can't say for sure - which is it?   If Kyle can't say for sure, how can you say they were turned over, and that they were turned over immediately?  What are you basing the "immediately" on?

I'm asking because you sounded so definite at first, like you personally knew they were turned over immediately, but then shortly after it it sounds like it is just your opinion.   Like Klaas, I would like to know a date as to when the January 7th pictures that Kyle had were turned over to the FBI.

It is not a matter of "he wasn't responsible" - ANYONE that has information should turn it over - I am sure the FBI would much rather get the same thing twice than not at all.  For example,  I remember a time back in 2005 where Klaas and Hammer were working on gathering some information to turn over to the family.  I informed them of the same information that I had already turned over and what I had - I am sure it would not have deterred them from their project, because perhaps they had something additional or a different aspect from their research.

Check every detail, Check it twice.

Let me clarify....is one of the problems people have that the footage was not turned over to the FBI until the Freebirds turned it over to them? So when I say immediately, I mean during the trip, not months later. They were on ship, so at the first opportunity, the footage was turned over.



This was March 18, 2008.  At that time, Kyle assured us he had just recently sent the images from the Dec 30th and Jan 7th dives to the FBI, but had never received a response from them.
 
We later found that to be false.

answer from Kyle:


This is completely incorrect. I had sent the FBI the dive screen shots the day each dive was made. Either John or Tim T. sent out the ROV videos at the first opportunity. This wasn't in my hands.  I think the Freebirds contacted Birmingham FBI and drew a blank.  I sent the screen shots to the senior agent in charge the day they were created, as instructed -Agent edited and edited (Barbados). 

[truthseeker2]

I am going to venture into this little thing here.  (gosh, I hope I don't regret it)

What I understand ldstlou to be saying here is that there was a protocol on the ship where things were turned over to the FBI as they were developed and Kyle was not the one on the ship that was assigned to do that.

Am I right, ldstlou?

[klaasend]

LDSTLOU - the problem I have with this is that there is no reason with today's technology that the ROV footage couldn't have been turned over on January 7, 2008 along with the screen shots.  NO REASON.   The footage is nothing more than a video captured on a disc.  The video can be electronically transmitted IMMEDIATELY.

So then why wasn't everything turned over to the FBI immediately?

[klaasend]

I am going to venture into this little thing here.  (gosh, I hope I don't regret it)

What I understand ldstlou to be saying here is that there was a protocol on the ship where things were turned over to the FBI as they were developed and Kyle was not the one on the ship that was assigned to do that.

Am I right, ldstlou?

But Kyle said the video footage etc was not turned over to the FBI immediately.  Whether it was his job or not, he relayed that it wasn't done. 

[ldstlou]

Define immediately.  When was the footage/pictures turned over.  Do you know this answer.  Can you provide a factual date.

I don't want to hear Kyle said immediately.  I want a date.

the day they were created!!!!

The pics from January 7th ldstlou - not December 30.

Hotshot answered this one a few times i think. These were not Kyle's responsibility to turn over. They were turned over by either John or Tim. Kyle can't say for sure because he was not  there when they were turned over. Any date he gave would be pure speculation.  This does NOT imply a conspiracy, nor that they were not turned over timely, it only says that it wasn't Kyle's responsibility at the time and he was not the one who turned over the footage...but it was turned over.

there are two separate issues here, screen shots and the actual footage. Sceen shots were sent daily as intructed by the FBI agents in charge, and the footage was turned over at the first opportunity.

Screen shots sent daily as instructed by the FBI Agents in charge? I did not know that the FBI was involved?   

They were.