Eighteen months later “Natalee Holloway” is down to 610,000 hits on Google from a high of 1.2 million, currently falling by 10,000 hits a month. By December it's down to just over 500,000.
With the exception of a dwindling number of die-hard blogs, it's a case of “Natalee who?”.
A Dutch crime show is poised to hit the case with a defibrillator [but it didn't]. The only insignificant items that emerged from the Peter de Veries show where the unsupported claims that Joran's lawyer had a secret meeting with the prosecutor early in the case in which he indicated Joran's confession, but on closer examination the claim has no legs to run - everybody denies everything.
The same must be said for the unsurprising assertion that Natalee was dealing coke to her schoolmates on the trip. Far from producing anything new, or even making something old solid, this programme seems to have been mainly informed from Beth's journal, and nobody should be surprised that Joran's digs were broken into and all material that could be related to the case stolen - the most obvious suspect being the de Veries show.
The National Enquirer rehashed the so-called Arubay or Chicago videos supposedly of Aruban police near the California lighthouse disposing of NH's body wrapped in white plastic.
It's hard to imagine anything more calculated to strip the last vestages of dignity from Natalee Holloway than to become perpetual pulp fodder - reduced to freak status alongside three-headed goats and alien abduction.
The posting of Joran's (unsigned) “bombshell” statements to BFN, a blog associated with the Twitty family, following the collapse of their New York case against Joran (at the first hurdle as predicted here), was clearly an attempt to keep the case alive and newsworthy.
Keeping the case before the public seems to be the total HMI fixation as if that will somehow solve it, but by any measure the story is sinking on the web, in the cable rant shows and even the gutter press, while few if any MSM will now touch it.
Media coverage is now so low it is no longer graphed
Whatever the covernance of “Joran's” unsigned statement, its content does not support Beth Twitty's interpretation of it as an admission of pack rape or even sexual assault, something long contradicted by Dompig and others. Even if it did, under Dutch law an admission to an offence is not sufficient for a conviction without supporting evidence.
As it happened this release of “statements” came right on top of another Skeeterised item in the form of the Renfro Statement which stole the thunder somewhat. The posting of this slanderious and transparent forgery once again highlights the ethical vacuume that is BFN and HMI generally - seeking justice and truth through injustice and lies.
This was a particularly stupid and obvious case of inserting a line intended to discredit in the translation of one of these leaked statements. This insertion of a sentence accepting payment for making an assault complaint against Jug Twitty is being minimalised by HMI as a “mistranslation” when in fact it was truly pathetic attempt to discredit Renfro.
Again, the real story here is not in the detail of what Renfro had said or done, or even yet another crude attempt to doctor the evidence, but the broad sweep, the meta-view. This continues a clear pattern of misrepresentation, and HMI turning viciously on people who have supported them in their supposed quest for Natalee. I say “supposed” because it gets continually harder to reconsile the actions of Beth Twitty with her statements that she is simply “seeking the truth”.
While it is still not clear what ends are actually being served by the on-going HMI circus, it has long been obvious that the actions of Beth Twitty and her supporters have been at odds with her stated aim, and that her wild and apparently boundless claims of an Aruba-wide coverup, even if true, have been very damaging to her stated cause.
Looking at this gross inconsistancy I am left wondering if Beth is incapable of simple reason, very poorly advised, or actually has different aims to her statements. My last option is that Beth has some sort of personality disorder.
One item on someone's agenda is political change in Aruba - and there 'ain't nuthin' democratic about it.
Beth-speak
I've been re-reading transcripts of TV interviews with Beth Twitty. What I was looking at initially were the gross contradictions at various times starting with “Natalee didn't drink”, Natalee has been raped and murdered, but later is somehow still alive and phoning.
But what can't help but strike any reader trying to make sense of Beth-speak is that this professional speech therapist with a Masters Degree does not seem able to form a complete sentence in english. She has two speech “ticks”, “well, ya know” and “absolutely”.
Attempts to understand exactly what she is saying are confronted with fractured statements that interrupt each other. After hours of reading you start to crave a complete sentence. It's only another wierd contradiction is this strange case.
Mind you, Beth's logic is easier to follow than many of the posters at Scared Monkees blog. I am finding most HMI posts have got so off the planet, ill-informed about the most basic case facts, and illogical in argument, as to not be worth even skim reading any more.
Dr Leslie Cannold
Centre for Gender and Medicine
Monash University
The Age 10th August 2006, Opinion, p15The net brings you the world, but not necessarily the facts.
Some bloggers need a little old-fashioned editorial scrutiny.
...Peruse personal websites, blogs and the comments sections offered by mainstream and boutique news sites, and amid the sometimes insightful and occasionally amusing commentary are a significant number of contributions in contention for the totally-missed-the-point, played-the-person-not-the-ball, mono-rail-mind or axe-to-grind awards.
...Despite names suggestive of a certain seriousness of purpose, many personal websites and blogs are little more than cyber-cliques where the initiated preach to the paranoid in a closed and unfalsifiable system of proof. “You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts” US Senator Patrick Moynihan once noted.
Dr Cannold could have been writing about the HMI blogs.
“You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts”
That's the difference between being mistaken, and deluded.
Keycards, drugs, and drowning
So, after all the many garbage assertions, the shoe, the well, the white plastic bag, come to naught, what are we left with?
* J2K were the last people known to have seen Natalee Holloway the night she vanished.
* Of these, JvdS seems to be the last individual to have seen her.
* These three lied about the events of early that morning. Joran and Satish still differ on how Joran got home.
* The cellphone and computer records are consistant with NH dropped off at the beach, and JvdS walks home.
* From the room keycard records, on balance it would appear that Ruth McVey was the one actually in possession of Natalee's room keycard that morning, and that she was actually out and about at exactly the time Natalee was going missing, not asleep in her own bed as she had previously claimed. (see page 7)
These keycard records do not show that Natalee returned to her room after being with Joran since it is obvious from the first post-midnight swipe that Natalee was not carrying the keycard issued in her name that night.
Elsewhere (page 9) I have written about the prospects of accidental drowning, particularly if sunstroke and/or drug interactions could have been envolved. Most other commentators on both sides are stuck on “perp”; that a crime was committed against Natalee. But if you look at this last-known picture of Natalee (at C&C's) her complexion is striking...
Anyone with experience with the effects of sunstroke and dehydration will recognise this red-flushed sunburn over the grey pallor of dehydration.
“But” some people will cry “how could she be dehyrdated when we know she was drinking like a fish!”. This is based on the misconception that any drink equals water.
In fact alcohol dehydrates the body even under normal circumstances and it is quite possible to get seriously dehydrated by drinking lots of alcohol in a tropical environment - even in mixer drinks.
What is less well-known is that softdrinks, either alone or in mixers, do little to hydrate the body, and that people depending on softdrinks for hydration can still suffer collapse due to dehydration.
If the colours in this photo are true, then Natalee was clearly headed in that direction at that time. Treatment for dehydration collapse is equally simple and effective - cool and rehydrate, but if not treated promptly can quickly lead to organ damage and death.
We know that Natalee was drinking 151 vodka, effectively neat alcohol, as “Red Fires” and “jello-shots”. We know she was taking a Z-pack, a second-order antibiotic for a nasal infection, and that she should therefore have also been taking pseudoephedrene.
Now the question emerges, what is the mixer added to the 151 to make a Red Fire? If this is, as some suggest, a caffinated drink such as Red Bull, then another significant factor is introduced. Such mixers tend to mask the effect of alcohol which may cause the drinker to consume more than a biologically safe level and lead to death.
If Natalee did go for a swim that early morning it is now clear that she was in serious danger of suffering a collapse, and in the dark with few people around, drowning would be quite likely.
Contrary to HMI propoganda, in roughly one-third of ocean drownings the body is not recovered, the most obvious example being the boy who drowned at the next beach, Eagle, only a year or so before.
Family and friends
There is something more than passing odd about the overall behaviour of Natalee's family and supporters.
The initial reaction, and inconsistancies from “kidnapped”, normally a major red flag to investigators, through the “family investigation”, still admit no rational explanation.
There is a also a significant disjoint between Beth's statement...
“I knew immediately that my daughter had been kidnapped in Aruba” - Beth Twitty, Vanity Fair, Jan 06 p111.
...and the record of her actions when postering Aruba...
“Natalee - Please call me Hootie, I miss you and love you. Mom is here on Aruba and I really want to talk to you. Please call me on my local cel phone 962-9593 - xoxo Big Hootie” (and etc.) - early poster (page 12).
One of these can't be right, and since the posters are clearly directed to a runaway, since kidnap victims don't see posters or call home, we must therefore logically reject Beth's statement as false.
The most likely reason for “kidnapped” would be the Twitty's who still presumed Natalee to be a runaway, trying to light a fire under ALE to help find her for them.
Also in the VF article (ibid) and at other times Beth has recounted calling 911 (the US emergency number) to report Natallee as kidnapped. The records of these calls are public in the US, but alleged attempts by a blogger to obtain the record of this call are reported to be answered that no such call is on record.
It is possible that the call was made and that records of it simply cannot now be found, but given Beth's now well established record for embellishment, inconsistancy and plain untruth there must be doubts.
Then, after months of asserting Natalee's “pack rape” and “murder” on TV, Beth Twitty is on Dr Phil repeatedly assuring him that she has had a phone call from Natalee. This is a clear and gross inconsistancy in her statements; sure she is dead, “with God”, in May/June, a few months later swearing to hearing her on the phone and convinced she's alive, later again “murdered” by J2K.
We have statements from Beth that she “slept for 118 hours” after arriving in Aruba, which sit alongside other statements that she was “awake for 72 hours”. Both are possible, but it has to be said that sleeping for such a period is quite unlikely, particularly in the situation of an on-going search.
Free pass
Also still unresolved has been the defence of the chaparones, her tripmates, and the particularly the “two black security guards”.
For someone who has demonstrated a willingness to turn on even close helpers with a breath-taking savagery, the continuing free pass for the other students and particularly the (not-a) chaparones is confounding.
The chaparones clearly carry at least a moral responsibility for failing to safely return one of their charges, yet they have not even been minimally called to account for their obvious failure of duty.
But the passionate defence of the two black security guards and the “terrible injustice” of them being locked up sit oddly with Beth's unfounded accusations against J2K.
Even when you know (or perhaps because you know) that “one security guy in a black shirt” morphed into HMI's “two black security guys”, and you have laughed at Beth dubbing them “Afro-Americans”, the HMI whitewash remains curious. To any rational investigator these two would have to remain at least “persons of interest” until the case is resolved.
Skeeterisation
From the driveway confrontation onward, the actions of Natalee's parents and their friends (Fab7) pose some interesting questions.
Very early someone with a connection to the DEA was envolved (retired or on holiday in Aruba). The FBI arrive in force within a few days of the Aruban police themselves being notified.
From early posts and news items it seem that two FBI agents were on Aruba within 24 hours, and a total of 13 by the end of the first week. This is in contradiction to HMI claims of delay and neglect.
There is little doubt that the Twitty's have some official pull or clout, but it is not at all clear where this clout derives from. There are a number of possibilities ranging from a campaign contributor through ex-military or intelligence, and organised crime.
The people the Twitty's have brought into this case must pose questions about their judgement, or their network of friends.
To list only a few; Arthur Wood - retired Secret Service agent, T.J.Ward - Atlanta private investigator, and John Q. Kelly - attorney for the Holloways, apoplectic ex-NY cop turned process-server Bo-Diddly, Skeeters and Dr Phil. (see also page 10)
And of course Joe Mammana who is now in legal dispute with Crimestoppers where it is alledged that he promised to pay a reward and is now refusing to honor an agreement, counter-alledging that Crimestoppers forged his signature.
[31/12/06] As if to underscore this curious choice of associates; towards the end of the year Mammana was raided and arrested, initially at least for having a gun as a convicted felon. The hearing later exposed serious threats made by Mummana against his ex and her child, and that he had the means and a history of flight to avoid the law, and was thus remanded in custody until his trial. Given the evidence he has a serious risk of five years inside. In interview Beth said she was “standing by” Mummana in his current tribulations.
But the subtext to this item is that the IRS (US tax department) appear to been looking at Mummana for tax evasion and money laundering and the firearm charge may simply be a (valid) pretext to hold him while the investigations are completed.
Of these associates Jossy Mansur, editor of Diaro, has perhaps the clearest ulterior motive - the election of a conservative government in Aruba in which he would have influence. He seems a natural neo-con political ally of the Alabama Crew (and is alleged to be an old schoolmate of Jug's).
One thing Jossy, Mummana, and the Twitty's share in common is coming under notice for money laundering, and HMI certainly behave as a law unto themselves, more like some low-rent Mafia than Middle-class.
[31/12/06] Again Jossy came to notice with a videotape he made of a conversation with Dompig in which Dompig expresses the view that he expects the boys to crack under pressure.
It quickly emerged that this videotape dated from when J2K were still in custody, over a year ago, and has been well overtaken by events since. This continues his pattern of releasing information that turns out to be much ado about nothing.
And this leads to another interesting, possibly unique, feature of this case in the history of missing persons, in that it has become a party-political football. One blogger commented “only Republicans care about Natalee; all the Democrats want to do is trash the family”.
These are the same Republicans and Christians who thunder on about “family values”, but find nothing questionable in a family knowingly sending their “very naïve” “didn't drink” 18 year-old daughter on an all-inclusive drink-a-thon to Aruba.
It's an ugly history to own, and one has to wonder why?
The Boycott
The Aruban boycott was, and continues to be, a really stupid idea that utterly failed.
The question then becomes; why persist?
This action more than any other by the Twitty family can be clearly seen to have had a serious negative impact on their stated aims.
Deepak sues for defamation
New: 31/12/06
In California Deepak Kalpoe sues Dr Phil McGraw and others for defamation over the Jamie Skeeters tape, and Beth Twitty promptly sues Deepak for the wrongful death of Natalee.
Taken at face value Deepak was clearly and seriously defamed by Dr Phil, Skeeters, et al. This will be mainly a matter of the detail of California defamation law, (but since others are willing to project American law onto Aruba, I will project British law onto California).
One matter for consideration will be, was Deepak defamed? Of this there seems little doubt. The Dr Phil show screened part of a videotape conversation between Skeeters and Deepak, apparently, and from later remarks by Beth and Skeeters, made without Deepak's knowledge. The two-odd hours of tape are a rambling conversation with little reference to Natalee or the events of that night.
In the portion screened Deepak can be heard replying “we did” to the question did you have sex with Natalee. Later investigation by the FBI and Dutch foresic institute NFI found the tape had been tampered with at that point.
Effectively the audio and video had been collaged to change “we didn't” to “we did”, and the context of the conversation changed to support this change from a denial to an admission.
In a case already littered with falsehood this goes far beyond spin and even other doctored and fabricated “evidence”. Whatever Deepak may have done, it is hard to imagine any justification for fabricating a confession which tramples any concept of honest justice into the dust.
Copies of all versions are still available at Scrux.
[10/2/07] The un-doctored version of this has been uploaded to YouTube and can now be seen in better detail, removing any doubt about depak's denial.
What has become apparent is that Beth has had this un-doctored denial version all along, and has stated in interview right after the Dr Phil screening that she has watched it “many times”. Her “confession of gang rape” statements in interview are now shown to be a deliberate inversion of the truth. Confronted over the authenticity of the Dr Phil version the only conclusion is that Beth lied her head off. There is no way she could not have known the aired “confession” was inverted from her copy during that show.
The transcripts alone of the two versions give a strong sense of how much editing was required to make the changes, and it was considerable both in the equipment and skill required.
[edit 10/2/07] In light of the fact that Beth, Skeeters (and others) hit cable in support of the doctored version this now leaves only the conclusion that there was in fact an actual conspiracy between Beth, Skeeters, and the Dr Phil show to slander Deepak by fabricating his confession.
Under British law at least, Dr Phil is clearly nominally responsible for screening a defamation because he is required to know that a potential defamation is truthful before it is broadcast, and this particular statement was obvious dynamite.
Under American law the onus seems to be reversed, requiring the defamed to show the defamation is untrue. In this case that would seem to need only a demonstration that the screened version was collaged from the original to produce a bogus “confession”.
It does not seem to be required for Deepak to prove facts about the Natalee Holloway case itself, only that the tape was obviously manipulated between recording and airing, the facts of deliberation, malice and conspiracy then being self-evident.
The simple fact of Beth's Wrongful Death suit against Deepak supports his claim to having been defamed - this supposed admission of sex being converted by Beth into direct accusations of murder on various TV shows over the following week - and all knowingly built on a lie.
In one notable show Beth's assertions of confessions are directly and and specifically refuted by Dompig where he says that the statements contain no such admissions.
It now seems likely that these are the statements she flourished at a TV camera as “proof”, later leaked via BFN only to contain no such admissions, and that Beth and Greta knew it at the time - outright lies.
Under California law your milage could vary.
But failing Deepak suddenly being charged with some crime over Natalee, it only seems to be a matter of negotiating damages and the terms of a retraction/apology by the Dr Phil show.
Beth sues Deepak for Wrongful Death
On the other hand Beth's attempted counter-suit against Deepak for causing Natalee's wrongful death looks to have no better prospect than her New York filing, and for much the same reason.
This “countersuit” (technically it isn't) as it has been spun by some, such as Greta, as a cunning trap. But in the cold light of day it looks like more New York ineptitude, a lost cause from the outset having no more standing in California than in New York.
Firstly it seems that Deepak's suit against Dr Phil does not give the Beth Twitty the legal standing to sue Deepak that the suit assumes, and a motion to combine the two suits has be denied.
While Beth's statements on the Dr Phil show are really central to Deepak's suit, these are not what, or who, he is suing. Beth Twitty is not named in Deepak's suit as a defendant and therefore lacks standing under California law to mount a countersuit. This much seem quite clear from preceedent.
If anyone is doing a bait-and-switch here it's Deepak, not going after Beth directly, but after those who have parroted her defamations.
As I predicted, the first blow is against the worst example with the deepest pockets, not against Beth herself but someone repeating her accusations. Beth may be the primary source of this whole mess, but megaphones like Dr Phil have sue-ability. So it's logical to ignore Beth as only a spreader of Dr Phil/Skeeters creativity.
It's ironic that the doctored tape must have been a conspiracy between Beth, Dr Phil and Skeeters; yet now Skeeters is dead, Beth isn't being sued by Deepak, thus leaving Dr Phil alone to cop all the flak (unless his lawyers decide it would be helpful to drag Beth into the mire as well).
In the chase for ratings several of the cable talking heads assumed they were attacking soft targets who couldn't hit back. Comments during the short-lived New York suit were the first warning shots back, now Dr Phil is being legally shirt-fronted by a some poor bozo they thought they could just crush as ratings fodder.
“Enough of the bullshit already!” exclaimed Deepak on the tape, but they weren't paying sufficient attention.
As one blogger wrote, “the real victims here are the fellow conservatives who believed her lies”. Supporting Beth is turning out to be a risky proposition.
I'll say it again; everything on the web is archived somewhere, and those blogs and posters without the “grieving mother” defence are in the front line. As in any battle it will be the troops in the front line who will take the hits while the generals sit somewhere safe. Sucked-in big time, and now legal cannon fodder. (see also page 11a)
Nothing has happened to change Judge Kapnick's ruling that the correct venue for Beth to sue is in Aruba (page 12), but we can only guess at her reasons for not heeding this obviously sound legal advice.
One can only sermise from the New York and California filings that Beth lacks any evidence with legal substance, that a suit in Aruba would also fail but would really be the last gasp for Beth, and that filing sure-fire losers in US courts is simply an attempt to stoke the fires of public attention. But if the figures from Google trends (see top) are any guide it is already a cold case and these filings have made very little impact.
So unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat Beth's case is again going nowhere and she will again be seen on TV being “shattered” at the loss of her “last hope”. Until the next time.
Beth's actions over this case put me in mind of the old saying that “you can't push a piece of string” because it seems to me that in a sense that is how she tries to deal with people - “my way or the highway”.
The case history is littered with a string of vitriolic fallings-out with supporters and helpers, ranging from Julia Renfro to the ill-disguised kerfuffle on BFN. This pattern only serves to confirm Dompig's observation that “they seem to come from a world where you can just crush people” - VF Jan '06 pp 112.
All positions of social power have limits, even in outlaw groups such as the Mafia, but people who have some of that power may not know where those limits are until confronted by a situation where their power and sense of entitlement doesn't work, such as the speed cop intent on their own duty. (see the film “Casino”)
We can get an idea of the true extent of Twitty influence in gaining the support of the Governor of Alabama for a boycott of Aruba, but also from their failure to carry it any further to other states, or federally where they have more pressing problems like a war going badly pear-shaped.
In situations where waving the school tie, ringing the Commissioner, or chucking a major tanty will work, it would be foolish to do otherwise. But in Aruba the Fab-7 failed to recognise a situation where their normal strongarm tactics would backfire badly.
Far from motivating Aruban ALE they started out as part of the problem by “bringing the perps to them on a silver plate”.
Not only did the Twitty's display no understanding of the Dutch-derived Aruban legal system, Beth doesn't seem to have an understanding of any legal system; the concepts of legally admissable evidence, witness tampering, or the presumption of innocence with her various demands for extra-legal arrest, interrogation, travel bans, extradition and so forth.
Filing summary
New: 4/2/07The full filings for the suits Kalpoe v Dr Phil, Twitty v Kalpoe, and Dr Phil's reply to the Kalpoe suit are all either on, or linked through Refugees Unleashed.
Kalpoe v McGraw
The Kalpoe suit asserts that Dr Phil, Skeeters and others altered the secret interview tape to incrimiate the Kalpoes, and rather interestingly cites a number of examples where Beth in particular ran with this version of events.
Over the next week or so of interviews what was at the most extreme an admission of group sex, was incremented by Beth to claims of drugged gang rape and murder.
It cites the NFI as finding the tape manipulated to change the sense of the conversation.
Twitty v Kalpoe
The Twitty suit is basically Beth's assertions in the New York suit filtered through, and re-written by, a lawyer. Many of the quotations are either unattributed, or third-hand with reporters interviewing reporters repeating unidentified sources.
A number of the “facts” asserted are demonstrably false and there is a great deal that is at best misleading. This general construction of events is cherished by HMI and it is unfortunate that this suit seems certain to be chucked like the New York suit without any of these assertions being tested for substance.
It will be very interesting if Beth ever does manage to get her day in court and has to produce proof of her oft-repeated assertions.
McGraw reply to Kalpoe
The nub of this rebuttal is that Dr Phil did nothing wrong, dishonest or deceptive, and even if he did that the Kalpoes had no reputation left to tarnish.
Obscure points of US law aside, the case seems to pivot on the veracity of the tape segments aired by the show. It's pretty obvious now that the recording was altered to invert the meaning of the answers and not for simple production reasons such as duration.
This amounts to fabrication of evidence of guilt where there was none. It's one thing to be personally convinced J2K raped and murdered Natalee as Beth seems to be, but quite another to fabricate evidence, yet there have been too many examples of distortion, misrepresentation, misquotation, and outright lies in this case to list.
