Aruba Today: Kalpoe Lawyers; Tapes are Illegal and Falsified

From the September 17, 2005 Aruba Today, The Kalpow attorney state that not only are the tapes from the Dr. Phil show illegal that they are falsified as well.

According to Kalpoe’s Lawyer Rudi Oomen, the tape recording was not only illegally obtained, but edited in a way to make it appear that Deepak answered questions that were not originally asked. This interview clearly was a farce creating an allusion of guilt of the suspect for Dr. Phil’s viewers and guests.

However, the following couple of statements seem a bit far fetched as they occurred after the much publicized Beth Twitty confrontation with Deepak Kalpoe in the Internet Cafe. One would have thought after such a confrontation where Deepak claimed he was harassed and intimidated by Beth Twitty that his attorney, Rudi Oomen, would have told his client to talk to no one.

According to Oomen, Skeeters approached Kalpoe in July shortly after Beth Twitty herself had confronted Kalpoe in his place of employment. Twitty attempted to entice Kalpoe in person with a tempting $250,000 if he would just tell her that he “wasn’t involved in a sexual crime against her daughter …

Skeeters approached Kalpoe as a friend to help him combat the negative publicity that the family of Natalee continued to portray of him. Skeeters never told Deepak that he was being taped and he personally guaranteed that his conversations with him would be private.

One really does wonder why Deepak Kalpoe would have talked to anyone after the Beth Twitty confrontation and that his attorney would have advised him not to do so at all. Seems like there is a bit of controversy as to whether now Deepak admits he was being taped. Deepak’s attorney then goes on to say,

“It is obvious after viewing the Dr. Phil show, Skeeters had other intentions. The interview was fabricated by clearly a cut and paste procedure,”

One can also say the following, there is a difference between an fabrication and normal media editing. There is no such thing in the media as a non-edited story in print or video unless it is live. The other rather interesting quote of the article is the following, “After hearing the misleading false confession provided by Skeeter”. Misleading false confession? I think the question that comes to mind to any reasonable adult is why would there be a confession to anything if one was not guilty? Whether there was a camera present or not, a recording device or not; what difference would it make? If some one is innocent of something, do they really state otherwise if they don’t believe they are being recorded? This is the dilemma that the good people of Aruba face. Why are they supposed to believe Deepak was mislead into a confession by the American media when I am certain his attorney forbade him to talk to the media. How does someone confess to something that all along they stated otherwise? Do the people of Aruba who took time out of their lives to search for Natalee Holloway really believe that? Arubans may not like the style or form of the Dr. Phil Show or the reference of a boycott; however, to believe some of what Deepak’s attorney is saying is also difficult to believe. Deepak’s attorney concluded with the following statement:

Oomen concluded that his client could not afford to take legal recourse against Skeeter for his fabrication and defamation.

Interesting, seeing that they had n problems initially claiming that they were going to sue Beth Holloway Twitty for defamation when she made the reference that the suspects were criminals.

“She called our client, Mr. Satish Kalpoe, a ‘criminal,’ ‘involved in a violent crime against my daughter’ and who is ‘allowed to walk freely among the tourists and citizens…”

The good people have choices to make no matter what spin comes from either side. They may come about it from different angles Natalee’s parents, Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway are both after the same outcome. The where abouts of their daughter and justice for her. Make no mistake about it, they may have different approaches to the investigation; however, both believe that the three suspects know what happened to their daughter.