Kalpoe v McGraw (Dr. Phil lawsuit)

[Luke Davis]

It looks like this is all that remains, of the case, that will see any activity. The next hearing is in early January.

Pleading Index (http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/kalpoe.mcgraw.index.html)

Information (http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/Menu26.html)

Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, teenage brothers who were once considered prime suspects in the 18-year-old's May 30, 2005, disappearance while vacationing in Aruba, is suing the Dr. Phil show, claiming they were defamed on national TV.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses McGraw, along with private investigator Jamie Skeeters and the CBS Television Group, of committing libel and slander, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, fraud, deceit and civil conspiracy by editing and airing an interview between Skeeters and Deepak Kalpoe to suggest the brothers somehow committed a crime.

[Luke Davis]

A hearing is scheduled for today.

IMO

[Details]

When do we get more on this case? Dr. Phil seems like he'll be in a lot of trouble once the delays are over and this goes to trial - if it ever does. I expect a settlement.

[Luke Davis]

ModBee (http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/202750.html)


A judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a defamation suit against CBS and TV psychologist "Dr. Phil" McGraw brought by two brothers who were questioned in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway.

William Cremer, the lead attorney for Surinamese brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, lauded the decision by Superior Court Judge Edward A. Ferns.

"I'm going to take Dr. Phil down," he said outside the courtroom.

The ruling comes a day after ABC's "20/20" aired a secretly recorded conversation involving Joran van der Sloot who also has been interrogated by Aruban authorities into what happened to Holloway nearly three years ago. Van der Sloot claims the teen's body was dumped in the ocean and that it would never be found.

Cremer said the remarks by van der Sloot, which were secretly recorded by a Dutch crime reporter, help his clients' defamation case.

"It pretty much exonerates my boys, doesn't it?" Cremer said.

[Texas53]

Quote from above article:

Cremer said the remarks by van der Sloot, which were secretly recorded by a Dutch crime reporter, help his clients' defamation case.

------------------------------------------
They are friends of Vander Sloot's. What do they know and when did they know it? They might want to slow down on that suit. Depending on what additional information comes out about Vander Sloot (since he proved people like him cannot keep their mouths shut), they could be called to testify for the prosecution or they may know as much as Vander Sloot be ruled as accessories or falsifying information, trying to hide evidence. We don't have all the info, but enough that Vander Sloot will be going to jail on some charge (and convicted) JMHO

[Details]

The suit is valid even if they personally killed Natalee, and every other missing person in the world - doesn't change the fact that Dr. Phil changed the tape to provide the image of a confession that was not real. He changed an answer from "No, she didn't" to "She did" - that's about as wrong as you can get.

However, Joran's recent confession does exonerate the Kalpoe brothers of knowing anything at all, confirms that the story they told was the truth as they knew it. He may not actually go to jail on it - even a confession needs confirmation when it is renounced, but the story he's giving pretty well clears the Kalpoes.

[Texas53]

The suit is valid even if they personally killed Natalee, and every other missing person in the world - doesn't change the fact that Dr. Phil changed the tape to provide the image of a confession that was not real. He changed an answer from "No, she didn't" to "She did" - that's about as wrong as you can get.

However, Joran's recent confession does exonerate the Kalpoe brothers of knowing anything at all, confirms that the story they told was the truth as they knew it. He may not actually go to jail on it - even a confession needs confirmation when it is renounced, but the story he's giving pretty well clears the Kalpoes.


Editing tape is common on television/cable/movies and even local news. He shouldn't have done that. But Dr. Phil is like the rest of the tv world. Its ratings. Maybe this will bring him down to the real world. Actually, I think the suit might get dismissed.

[Details]

Editing tape for time, to remove offensive content is common. Editing a tape to change "Yes" into "No", "Black" into "White" is not common.

It was a pretty big thing, the bombshell moment of the tape - he is asked something like "Did Natalee have sex with all of you?", and answers, "No, she didn't." Changing that into "She did" is not editing. People saw this and thought there was a confession in this case, pretty much convicted DK of sexual assault - and it simply was not actually what was said. That's not just editing, and it's not allowed for ratings.

Dr. Phil's attorneys have been trying every trick in the book to get the suit dismissed - hasn't happened yet, I don't think it will. This is just the most clear cut case I can think of - not something where an interviewer takes an interview, cuts all the bad moments together, and creates an impression that's all there is, but something where a reply is directly modified to turn "No" into "Yes".

[Texas53]

Editing tape for time, to remove offensive content is common. Editing a tape to change "Yes" into "No", "Black" into "White" is not common.

It was a pretty big thing, the bombshell moment of the tape - he is asked something like "Did Natalee have sex with all of you?", and answers, "No, she didn't." Changing that into "She did" is not editing. People saw this and thought there was a confession in this case, pretty much convicted DK of sexual assault - and it simply was not actually what was said. That's not just editing, and it's not allowed for ratings.

Dr. Phil's attorneys have been trying every trick in the book to get the suit dismissed - hasn't happened yet, I don't think it will. This is just the most clear cut case I can think of - not something where an interviewer takes an interview, cuts all the bad moments together, and creates an impression that's all there is, but something where a reply is directly modified to turn "No" into "Yes".


Dr. Phil is not the first or last to edit tape for his own benefit. Local news, talk & news show (i.e. 60 minutes, Dateline,2020, Channel 13 Houston, ABC, NBC, all stations) have done so. Its saves time, it can definitely slant a story to whomever's benefit and its the way of their business. Is it right? No. But its ratings. Its been done since the industry began and will not stop with Dr. Phil.

Law suits will be filed, some will be dismissed and some will be settled out of court. It depends on who has the most money and best attorneys.

[Luke Davis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcNOJDcvx2A

[Details]

Dr. Phil is not the first or last to edit tape for his own benefit. Local news, talk & news show (i.e. 60 minutes, Dateline,2020, Channel 13 Houston, ABC, NBC, all stations) have done so. Its saves time, it can definitely slant a story to whomever's benefit and its the way of their business. Is it right? No. But its ratings. Its been done since the industry began and will not stop with Dr. Phil.

Law suits will be filed, some will be dismissed and some will be settled out of court. It depends on who has the most money and best attorneys.Slant is different than completely changing what is said.

Slant is - I'm talking about illegal aliens, and I mention only their hard work, only quote the nice quotes from the nicest looking illegals, neglect to mention any crime or other implications. This is like a story on illegals where they ask a leader in the anti-illegal movement if they are all racists, and the leader replies, "No, we do not belong to the KKK" - and the 'editing' turns the response into "We belong to the KKK". That's not slant. That's outright false.

[Texas53]

Slant is different than completely changing what is said.

Slant is - I'm talking about illegal aliens, and I mention only their hard work, only quote the nice quotes from the nicest looking illegals, neglect to mention any crime or other implications. This is like a story on illegals where they ask a leader in the anti-illegal movement if they are all racists, and the leader replies, "No, we do not belong to the KKK" - and the 'editing' turns the response into "We belong to the KKK". That's not slant. That's outright false.

60 Minutes: Dan Rather and staff didn't verify if doc was real about W's military record. Who did it benefit? Dan Rather & CBS ratings, at least for that moment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html

Channel 13, Houston: Wayne Dolcefino, reporter, edited tape on TX State Senator Sylvester Turner, stating info that had not been verified and would discredit the Senator's record and reputation. Who did it benefit? The reporter and the stations rating. A lawsuit resulted and the station and Dolcefino lost. However, the station appealed the amount they were to pay and won. Dolcefino wasn't so lucky.
http://www.houston-press.com/1999-05-06/news/the-channel-13-exclusive/full

CNN -In November of 2007, CNN aired Death Grip: Inside Pro Wrestling, a one-hour investigative report. The report included footage from an interview with pro wrestler John Cena regarding steroids. According to World Wrestling Entertainment and Cena, CNN edited Cena's responses to make it seem as if he did not deny using steroids, while leaving room open for doubt that he did. His answer to the CNN interviewer's initial query of "Have you ever taken steroids?" was, "Absolutely not." Instead, CNN edited in a more detailed answer Cena provided several minutes later during the same interview. Who did it benefit? CNN and their ratings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

As far as the Kalpoe suit being compared to anything reported on Illegal Aliens, that comparing apples to oranges. Editing tape and information can and does happen on any segment/subject of news not just one specific segment/subject.

[Details]

More detailed answer - not changing "Absolutely not" into "Absolutely". Editing to slant the news is different than creating an absolutely false reply. Using less than properly sourced information is different than creating an absolutely false reply.

In this case, many millions, whatever the viewership was that day, believed they had heard, from Kalpoe's own mouth, a confession. Not from some source, not a more detailed response to make it appear he had not answered a question - but an absolute statement. It's not right. And it is, I think, exactly the same as if the denial of KKK involvement was turned into a statement that "We belong to the KKK".

I think we're going to differ here - but you really don't see the difference between a report on W's military record, and an altered tape of W saying he never reported for duty? A reporter saying information that is incorrect, and a reporter presenting as proof altered tapes to make it appear the Senator is saying all this info himself? Presenting only part of the response, versus altering Cena's response to say that "Yes, I do take steroids"? To me, that's a huge difference. People know that a reporter can be wrong, reports can be false - but when they hear someone admit something from their own mouth, they think it's true - how can that be a misreport? But with this type of altering answers, it is.

[Texas53]

More detailed answer - not changing "Absolutely not" into "Absolutely". Editing to slant the news is different than creating an absolutely false reply. Using less than properly sourced information is different than creating an absolutely false reply.

In this case, many millions, whatever the viewership was that day, believed they had heard, from Kalpoe's own mouth, a confession. Not from some source, not a more detailed response to make it appear he had not answered a question - but an absolute statement. It's not right. And it is, I think, exactly the same as if the denial of KKK involvement was turned into a statement that "We belong to the KKK".

I think we're going to differ here - but you really don't see the difference between a report on W's military record, and an altered tape of W saying he never reported for duty? A reporter saying information that is incorrect, and a reporter presenting as proof altered tapes to make it appear the Senator is saying all this info himself? Presenting only part of the response, versus altering Cena's response to say that "Yes, I do take steroids"? To me, that's a huge difference. People know that a reporter can be wrong, reports can be false - but when they hear someone admit something from their own mouth, they think it's true - how can that be a misreport? But with this type of altering answers, it is.


Editing tapes or information by the news media, reporters, talk show hosts, television stations or anyone is done knowingly. It is a matter of comon practice in the industry whether for good or bad reasons. It is up to the ones editing the tape whether it will be used for good or bad, honestly or dishonestly.

In the cases I posted, all 3 were done knowingly and on purpose and were not innocent misinformation, just like Dr. Phil. All 3 entities and their personnel knew what they were doing and why. It will continue whether anyone likes it or not. Links were provided to support the information.

[Details]

... In the cases I posted, all 3 were ... innocent misinformation....:howdy:

I'm not disputing the links. I'm saying there are different levels - to me, quite different levels. Someone seeing Dan Rather's report has room for doubt - maybe the report isn't accurate. Someone seeing Dr. Phil's report believes they have seen Deepak confessing directly.

[Luke Davis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ifWH0Lkss

[Luke Davis]

Over a month ago it was reported that Deepak and Satish's lawyers did not appear for a court hearing. I never saw it reported why this happened.

WHY (http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/kalpoemcgraw/3.pdf)

Recently, it was reported the D&S's lawyers had 5 days to produce documents, here is why.

WHY (http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/kalpoemcgraw/020508_minute.pdf)

With recent developments one can only wonder when all the documents can be furnished with more documents being produced.

IMO

[Luke Davis]

Discovery provided (http://homepage.mac.com/mcgraw.kalpoe.docs/.Public/kalpoemcgraw/020808_DK_Discovery.pdf)

[fairmaiden]

Editing tape is common on television/cable/movies and even local news. He shouldn't have done that. But Dr. Phil is like the rest of the tv world. Its ratings. Maybe this will bring him down to the real world. Actually, I think the suit might get dismissed.

Hi Texas .... Are you saying it's actually common to "edit" tape, so that it might say something completely opposite of what someone actually said ?? I could see where it would be common to "edit" for time .... but to actually "manipulate/alter/change", is an entirely different story.

[fairmaiden]

Editing tape for time, to remove offensive content is common. Editing a tape to change "Yes" into "No", "Black" into "White" is not common.

It was a pretty big thing, the bombshell moment of the tape - he is asked something like "Did Natalee have sex with all of you?", and answers, "No, she didn't." Changing that into "She did" is not editing. People saw this and thought there was a confession in this case, pretty much convicted DK of sexual assault - and it simply was not actually what was said. That's not just editing, and it's not allowed for ratings.

Dr. Phil's attorneys have been trying every trick in the book to get the suit dismissed - hasn't happened yet, I don't think it will. This is just the most clear cut case I can think of - not something where an interviewer takes an interview, cuts all the bad moments together, and creates an impression that's all there is, but something where a reply is directly modified to turn "No" into "Yes".

Actually Details .... Beth has said more than once, that Deepak "admitted on international television that they all RAPED Natalee". The word "RAPE" was not even uttered by Skeeter .... The statement was as you said .... "I believe she had sex with all of you", which Deepak denied.

[Luke Davis]

Kalpoes vs Dr Phil

04/29/2008 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel ((2); {Second} Motion to Dismiss


IMO

[Luke Davis]

05/06/2008 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Case Management (2) MTN TO DISMISS3) MTN FOR SUBST. OF PERS. REP.FOR DECEASED DEFT4) MTN FOR STAY OF ORDER5) CASE MANAGEMENT CONF6) OSC RE FTA ON 12/7/07)

IMO

[Luke Davis]

https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/


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
05/29/2008 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel (2) Motion to Dismiss3) Case Management Conference)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
Parties

CBS PARAMOUNT DOMESTIC TELEVISION - Defendant/Respondent's AKA

CBS TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION GROUP - Defendant/Respondent

CREMER KOPON SHAUGHNESSY & SPINA LLC - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOES 1-50 - Defendant/Respondent

FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

KALPOE DEEPAK - Plaintiff/Petitioner

KALPOE SATISH - Plaintiff/Petitioner

MCGRAW PHILLIP C. - Defendant/Respondent

PETESKI PRODUCTIONS INC. - Defendant/Respondent

SECURITY CONSULTANT SERVICES INC. - Defendant/Respondent

SKEETERS JAMIE - Defendant/Respondent



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
Please make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
10/17/2007 05/14/2007

05/07/2008 Summons Filed (ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/22/2008 Reply/Response (TO PLTFS' OPPO. TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

04/22/2008 Reply/Response (to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss and Request for Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiffs' Willful Failure to Comply with Court Orders)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

04/02/2008 Stipulation (to Continue the Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/02/2008 Order (Re: Stipulation of the Parties to Continue the Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/20/2008 Points and Authorities (POINTS AUTH.IN OPP TO DEFTS SECOND MOTION TO DISMISSED )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

02/22/2008 First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/21/2008 Notice of Continuance (OF HEARING ON SECURITY CONSULTANT SERVICES INC'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, ETC. OLD: 2/29/08 NEW: 4-29-08 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

02/15/2008 Reply/Response (TO DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/14/2008 Motion to Dismiss (AND REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ETC. SET: 4-3-08)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

02/08/2008 Declaration (OF SATISH KALPOE RE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/08/2008 Declaration (OF DEEPAK KALPOE RE DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/08/2008 Declaration (OF WM. J. CREMER )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/07/2008 Notice of Ruling (AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED CMC )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

02/05/2008 Order (Granting Application of Joshua D. Yeager to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

[Luke Davis]

Future Hearings

05/29/2008 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel (2) Motion to Dismiss: CONTINUED TO 6-4-08 PURSUANT TO STIP & ORDER FILED ON 5-23-083) Case Management Conference)


05/23/2008 Stipulation (of the Parties to Continue the Ruling on Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/23/2008 Order (Re: Stipulation of the Parties to Continue the ruling on Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

:love0081:About to settle?