Natalee Case Discussion #828 1/28/10 - 2/14/10

[jen3560]

One more time.

Please look at the quote on page 11, of the document you are quoting:

There is very little competent evidence offered by Plaintiffs (K2) to support falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements that Plaintiffs has sex with Holloway, and/or potentially drugged her and had non-consensual sex with her on the night of her disappearance. There is the purported order from the court in Aruba affirming the trial judge's decision to reject a request by the prosecutor to detain Plaintiffs. Even assuming this translation is admissible, it is not proof that Plaintiffs did not have sex with Holloway.....

http://scaredmonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kalpoedrphil050609awm.pdf

If there is an NFI document, where is it?  Why would they not attach it?  Probably because the suit is actually backed by The Strategic Task Force wanting money for the "boycott" revenge.  Their goal was to bring the big bad American to his knees with a big payout.



Even if the tape is proved false, that is not enough for a payout.  You must prove injury.  How does K2 seek damages (show injury) if Deepak is recorded saying "My life is over".  That obviously was his feeling BEFORE the tape aired (not caused by the airing).  That is also the reason they want the documents.  It is important for Dr. Phil to establish K2s reputation was BAD before the tape aired....The show did not do it.

Howdy Buckeye.

And that's the rub, isnt' it?  There has never been an official written NFI forensic analysis that has surfaced.  Anywhere.

The ONLY thing we the public have ever seen/heard is an editorial that the NFI found the IMAGES to have been altered.

Nothing about the AUDIO.

Remember also that Jamie Skeeters gave his hard drive directly to the FBI.  And the FBI analyzed it.  Can't wait for Paramount, CBS, Dr Phil etc, etc to pull that Whammy out of their pockets!!

And then if you'll remember......there was info put together by a deer friend of mine when Aruba (Arlene Schippers) tried to publicly denounce this whole Skeeters/Deepak recording.

On a Dan Abrams show - they compared 3 copies of that recording.

1 - Jamie Skeeter's hard drive

2 - Dr Phil Show snippet

3 - Aruba's copy

The only copy that deviated from "She did.  You'd be surprised how simple it was", was the copy ARUBA gave to Dan Abrams that Arlene was screeching about.

Meaning?  Aruba themselves manipulated the sound to try and paint the picture that Jamie and Dr Phil were lying for ratings purposes. 

I agree with you 100% that it is AHATA behind the suit filed by 2K.  I believe Paramount is of that same opinion - as they stated when this first started that not only do they stand behind what was aired on the Dr Phil Show, but that they would also make every effort to discover just who was funding this suit on 2K's behalf.

[jen3560]

Good morning Blue Moon!

I see klaas responded

I live in Miami -- so that fact that the creeton was here for any length of time just sickens me 

On the other hand -- if he had stayed here.......maybe Natalee would still be with us

Stay safe monkeys -- the weather crazies continue....


AVOID ARUBA AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT...IT DOES!!!
Justice for Natalee Holloway
Peace for her family and loved ones

Hiya Honey - I sure miss you!!! 

[jen3560]

Buckeye

The way I comprehend ...

IF the Phil McGraw recording was not manipulated and ... that is proven when professionally compared with the Skeeters' hard drive ... why would any case documents be required?  Deepak defamed himself in the interview.  Case Closed?

However ... the request of case documents from Aruba does makes sense IF the Phil McGraw recording was deceptively manipulated to imply that Deepak stated he had sex with Natalee.  McGraw's attorney would then have to prove that Deepak had not been defamed by the manipulation.

IMO

Janet

I don't believe so.  The case is not just about the authenticity of the tape.  It is also about Deepak not giving permission to air it.  If it is established that Deepak was ALREADY a public figure BEFORE the airing then Dr. Phil didn't need permission. That is part of the anti slap rulings. IIRC  Private persons have more protections than "public" persons.  If you want to prove someone is a public figure, you need to show the prevailing opinion BEFORE the airing.

You have it exactly right. By merely GIVING the recorded interview to Skeeters -- he implicitly became a "public person". However, that interview was jus an ADDITIONAL factor. The Kalpoes had already been ARRESTED for this crime -- that alone made them "public figures". They already had a "public persona" waaaaay before Dr. Phil came along.

Precisely!!!!

   Here's a good reminder of that pesky, yet poignant little fact.

BTW - I found it interesting to note the very heavy reading 2K's attorneys regularly did of the Natalee's Freebirds Blog.


http://nataleesfreebirds.blogspot.com/2007/10/aruban-authorities-implicate-main.html

"ARUBAN AUTHORITIES IMPLICATE MAIN SUSPECTS IN NATALEE HOLLOWAY CASE


As we await the outcome of the discovery process in the Kalpoe v. McGraw DEFAMATION lawsuit, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on an abbreviated version of a previous Freebird's publication which clearly demonstrates the original sources of the alleged defamation. HINT: Not Dr. Phil...."

[jen3560]

Johan visited us and I missed it? 

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   77.60.165.# (Conferentiecentrum Ernst Sillem Hoeve IJmca)
ISP   Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Location   Continent  :  Europe
Country  :  Netherlands  (Facts)
State/Region  :  Utrecht
City  :  Den Dolder
Lat/Long  :  52.1333, 5.25 (Map)
 
Language   French
fr
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.0.17) Gecko/2009122116 Firefox/3.0.17 Creative ZENcast v2.01.01
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor   Resolution  :  1440 x 900
Color Depth  :  32 bits 
 
Time of Visit   Jan 30 2010 11:05:43 am
Last Page View   Jan 30 2010 11:05:43 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL  http://images.google...rt=2&sig2=byDFcYZnqt
Visit Entry Page   http://scaredmonkeys...x.php?topic=2669.200
Visit Exit Page   http://scaredmonkeys...x.php?topic=2669.200
Out Click     
Time Zone   UTC+1:00
Visitor's Time   Jan 30 2010 5:05:43 pm
Visit Number   20,778,069


Den Dolder........ 

[jen3560]

Case Number: BC363201
DEEPAK KALPOE VS PHILLIP C MCGRAW

Filing Date: 12/13/2006
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

05/06/2010 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

05/17/2010 at 09:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial

Thanks Klaas.

Surely that trial date cannot happen without the defense being allowed to depose the Plaintiff's first.

I wonder if the Judge will be making the Order requested by the defense - Plaintiffs ORDERED to appear for depos on April 15th?

[jen3560]

Thanks TM!

Magnolia - yes May 2010 seemed way far off and now it's almost here.  As time gets closer I'm going to make sure I have a video camera on hand and hopefully access to the courtroom.   

Edited to add:  Then maybe the haters will finally get a correct current photo of me, LOL.  I'm sure they will be shocked at how imposing and threatening a person I am in person 

It would be wonderful if you could be there, Klaas.  I remember when posters were inside at Scott Peterson's trial.  There's nothing quite like being able to "be there" via someone who cares enough, and is able to be present.

[jen3560]

I'll have to figure out how I can do live streaming video from in front of the courthouse, LOL     I have 4 months to learn how 

If anyone can do it, my money's on you!!! 

[jen3560]

Goodnight all!

Good night Klaas!   

Thanks again for all you do for Natalee; and all the missing....and us.   

Thanks for all YOU DO, TxMom!  I do so very much appreciate the daily updates from hell hole craggy rock.

[2NJSons_Mom]

Janet - on your own Myspace account you could put Margaritaville or anything.  Deepak was in Aruba in 2007 or at least most of 2007.   You don't have to be honest about your location or birthdate or anything.  Most people don't think about it and put their usual information/location/birthdate.

Thank you Klaas.

Good Night All.

Janet

+++++++

The pdf states on page 6 that Deepak failed to declare that he 'attended' the International Christian Academy in Miami, FL in 2004 ?????

Why would they care if he took the course online??

This is a Visa application discussion. Why would that even be discussed if he took the course online?

Just curious.

Regarding Sharon's question quoted above, my interpretation was that both Deepak and Satish had filed for a Visa but each time had inconsistencies or omissions.  In other words, Deepak filed and omitted the Miami school, then later may have included it and a red flag came up. 

From personal experience in filing government forms for my Dad or our personal use, all info has to be filled in and documentation attached.  If not, denial will be forthcoming.  (my experience does not include Visas, but I would think Homeland Security would be strict on this). 

It seemed obvious to me that all schools attended were to be listed.  I have lost touch with a co-worker who was sponsored by our employer to get her working Visa when she married and came to the states from India.  When she sought her green card later, she and her husband had to travel to Canada (don't recall why), rather than NYC (as before) and it took a couple of days there before all of the necessary paperwork and further requirements were attained.  I remember there were many papers to be submitted and the night she stood by the copy machine trying to make the deadline. 

Oh, and Good Morning, everyone.  I got sleepy earlier than usual last night and missed the late night discussion once again.

[klaasend]

Preview photo of me in front of the L.A. courtroom: 

[NM]

Klaas,
Don't forget to wear the long pointy-toed shoes! (going way back in my memory banks for that one!) We have been on here a long time, J4N!

Pointy-toes good for kicking aruban dirt to the curb.

I envision all us Monkeys watching your webcam like Popcorn Kittys.

Hi fellow Monkeys!  gotta run to lunch.

[Magnolia]

Preview photo of me in front of the L.A. courtroom: 

It's Gidget the Flasher!!

[klaasend]

I was looking around this morning and there is a blackberry application that allows you to live stream video to the internet.  You can stream it to Wordpress (SM) or Youtube, Photobucket, Facebook, etc.

I'm going to purchase that application for my blackberry just in case.  I'll make sure my laptop is set up as well.  I don't have a cam recorder but I have 2 cameras besides my blackberry with video capabilities.   

[klaasend]

Klaas,
Don't forget to wear the long pointy-toed shoes! (going way back in my memory banks for that one!) We have been on here a long time, J4N!

Pointy-toes good for kicking aruban dirt to the curb.

I envision all us Monkeys watching your webcam like Popcorn Kittys.

Hi fellow Monkeys!  gotta run to lunch.

Good memory NM! 

But I haven't worn shoes like that since the late 60's when that incident took place

[klaasend]

Off to the store real quick, if I can get out the door before this puppy does.  He wants to go everywhere with me, lol 

[crazybabyborg]

Off to the store real quick, if I can get out the door before this puppy does.  He wants to go everywhere with me, lol 

Pointy shoes or barefoot, that's the fastest woman on earth!   

Hi Monkeys!   

[crazybabyborg]

public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). (See: defamation, libel, slander)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Figure

With the level of WORLDWIDE interest and news coverage of Natalee's story, I can't see any way that Deepak or Satish wouldn't be considered Public Figures by a legal definition.

[crazybabyborg]

You know, one look at Natalee's archives here on SM should nail them as Public Figures as defined by the law. How much more public can you get than that? We literally document in writing the level of great public interest, and we have the threads to prove it!

[Magnolia]

public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate). (See: defamation, libel, slander)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Figure

With the level of WORLDWIDE interest and news coverage of Natalee's story, I can't see any way that Deepak or Satish wouldn't be considered Public Figures by a legal definition.

When the judge dismissed the case against Skeeters estate, he stated that the Kalpoes were Newsworthy
or of public interest because of their involvement in the Natalee Holloway case.
I would think if they were persons of public interest in the Skeeters case the same would be true in the
Dr. Phil case.   All of that was filed in the California court around the first week of September 2009.

[crazybabyborg]

I'm sorry for belabouring this, but I was just cracking up! As far as "interest or familiarity" is concerned........... we all knew Deepak's tag numbers, spokes on his rims, Heck, I don't know those things about ME!