Natalee Holloway: Skeeter's Tape Analysis

I've taken a look at the infamous Skeeter's Tape using some audio software and it appears as though someone may have gone to some lengths to cover certain things up to prevent Dr. Phil's audience from hearing everything that was on the tape.

The sound file below is altered in volume but not content. It begins with the very last word of a question posed by Private Dick Skeeters: "And the question I'll ask you is, if you intentionally killed her." By adjusting the volume for the portion where it seems Deepak Kalpoe responded to that, it is very possible that what he said and the audience never heard, was, "I would never do that."

To display what I believe is going on with this tape, I am also including a graphic display for this short section of the tape. There is a portion where the graphic analysis strongly suggests Kalpoe was saying something which was covered up by the background music added by the Dr. Phil show - but it only fully drowns out a portion of his possible response. Note where I have inserted inaudible. The sound waves spike - yet whatever is there besides the music appaears to have faded completely into the background.

You will see a graphical representation above where I inserted the words "I would." Though nothing is audible there. If that is what he said and it was covered by the music, it would lead directly into the portion where there is a barely audible response. After listening to it repeatedly, the best guess I can make is that he is saying "never do that."

Consequently, it is possible that the exchange at that moment actually represented a statement by Deepak Kalpoe which would point to his innocence and not his guilt. The files are here - listen to yourself. You can expand the picture by clicking on it.

Download deepak_skeeters2a.wav

I am also looking at other parts of the tape. If I find anything else unusual, I'll post it.

Comments

[Arubaanse]

To be honest...I didn't understand not a word hi said

[Marilyn]

Very interesting, but it is all very confusing... I just listened to Dan Abrams show again and it seems they are just going around in circles.

Dan, what you are saying about adjusting the volume makes good sense, as it does seem that parts go in and out. It does seem that some parts are just silent of words. Some words cannot be heard at all... Hummm... what next???

[dreamquestrob]

I have reviewed this little 2 second sample in my audio studio software and yes, the backside of this has obviusly been enhanced -- I suspect the volume was artificially enhanced because the speaker's response was not that legible so the studio engineers must have increased the volume in an attempt to hear it better.

I wold need a larger audio sample in order to be more definitive. If someone will give me a link to one I will take a closer look at it.

[hardyandtiny]

All I get from the link is 2 seconds of audio.

[Marilyn]

The other thing that has always bothered me is that it makes absolutley no sense for Deepak to have said those things under the circumstances to anybody... He would have to be far more foolish than I think he is. It has never seemed like a truthful version of any recording to me. JMO.

[Bigfish]

Thank you Dan! Good job. :)

Bigfish

[Marilyn]

Yes, Dan... Thanks! Very helpful.

[Dan]

I have the full audio - not posting it because of the bandwidth and to make the example understandable. Believe me, after a lot of listening, slowing down, amplifying and applying different types of filters - I'm all but convinced he said, I would never do that. I can email the audio if someone wants it.

[portland]

Can I ask what the name is of the audio software you used to analyze the tape?

[portland]

Does the audio posted include the "never do that" portion of the tape?

[COLUMBO]

he may have said that indeed, but what they claim was not included in the teaser was that he implicated Joran....and if it is true, broadcasting it would have been damaging to whatever case may exist

[Key West]

remember..He D/L Many things to this Lappy HD. how many does he have?
I have a Few , as I bet he has more than 1, also !!
This is NOT only recording divice he had in his box of tricks!
If you remember he had Deepak shut off Vid-Cam ,but had another hidden. the back of the head shots we saw?? and the "Just Audio"?? why is not Deepak "In one Breath" saying this face to face if it's So 100% Skeets???
You must know when Mark Furman "Flips" on you ..
It's a WRAP!!

Dan.you buy a used Car from this man??

[Dan]

Does the audio posted include the "never do that" portion of the tape?

Yes but keep in mind you are talking about a quick snippet - you can also go to the political teen sire in the Natalee archives and find the Nancy grace video which contains the full audio.

It also appears there could be more. When I slow things down and amplify it - another pertinent conversation part goes something like: Q: I'm sure she had sex with all of you.

A: No, she didn't. You'd be surprised how simple it was THAT NIGHT.

Which could almost be the same thing as Deepak implying nothing much happened. They drove around and dropped Joran and Natalee off - simple. WHy else would he add "that night" It wasnt like they are supposed to have gang raped her on different nights.

The damn music the Dr Phil showed dubbed into these copies makes it impossible to be sure of this. But, clearly, if you had a telling tape - the LAST thing you would do is cover it up with music. That alone tells me this is BS.

[Dan]

Can I ask what the name is of the audio software you used

I'm using very basic software - far from the best. Audacity - and it can be had free on the web. But it is well-featured.

[portland]

Posted by: Dan | Nov 26, 2005 9:34:44 PM

Thanks.

[hardyandtiny]

Yeah, first time I heard that tape I thought it was BS. I'd like to check it out. Dan if you have time please e-mail it. Thanks.

[Dan]

If anyone wnats it emailed you have to email me and request it. I dont store email addresses for people.

[fundaloo]

I played that tape backwards.. and Skeeters is saying.. "I am the devil."

Well, that's what I heard...

[portland]

Ok, I have got a question. Here is the transcription they showed while the audio was playing:

S: And the question I'll ask you is: If any of you intentionally killed her?

D: No.

So what exactly are you saying they are trying to cover up here? Even if the audio actually says "I would never do that" it is still the same meaning as if he just simply said "No." I don't see the point in intentionally masking the audio as you claim while at the same time producing a subtitle at the bottom which produces the same effect as the audio would.

[portland]

By the way, I do hear the "that night." comment.

[roller]

Dan,

Thank you for taking the time to analyze and post this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Deepak's actual statement seems to negate Beth's entire "gang rape" charge and then some. Has she issued an apology yet? F**king amazing.

[reality]

Well if the Dr Phil tape is no good, than why not focus on the original skeeter tape. That's the only one that the Officials say is authentic, yet they have not commented on whether it is incriminating. Personnally if Dr Phil is trying to capitalize on this tradgedy he fits right in with all the other conspirators. So let's bypass them and get to the truth. It's still Natalee we are interested in, right?

[CitizenDick]

Perhaps Dompig needs to invite Skeeter back to Aruba to discuss the tape in person.

[Dan]

It's still Natalee we are interested in, right?

Of course, but why is it that only now is the actual recording going to the FBI from Skeeters. As for me, I am looking at everything which is out there. If it isn't out there, I can make a judgement.

"I would never do that" it is still the same meaning as if he just simply said "No." I don't see the point in intentionally masking the audio as you claim while at the same time producing a subtitle at the bottom which produces the same effect as the audio would.

I think there is a difference between a simple denial and a strong denial. After all, they are asking us to assess his credibility as much as anything else.

If the tape implicates them, that's fine by me. But I am also prepared to believe that it doesn't and Dr. Phil will offer up some lame excuse about the sound quality ... made even worse with their stupid dramatic music. If it weren't for that, we'd likely be able to easily identify what was said and what wasn't.

[portland]

I think there is a difference between a simple denial and a strong denial. After all, they are asking us to assess his credibility as much as anything else.

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

Sure, it is just that I don't see them going to all that trouble to do something which in reality doesn't change the meaning of what was said. I mean, if they are so bothered by his strong denial then why not take it out altogether instead of just adding in a more simple denial. It really doesn't make that much difference at all, and I don't see why they would just switch one denial for one with essentialy the same meaning if they were really that bothered by it. Especially when they could just admit it altogether.

[Rubby]

I also heard where OJ sworn he had nothing to do with killing Nicole and her friend. The whole clan should apologize to OJ for putting him thru hell.

He didnt do it cause he said so!

[newswatcher]

Thanks Dan. Another thing to consider is that snippets and bits of conversation were taken at different times, so any of Deepak's "responses" that we here on Dr.Phil may not be in answer to the questions that Skeeters supposedly asked.

[portland]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't scubajap say that Deepak told her the "you'd be surprised how simple it was" comment was in response to another question?

[Aussie]

I'm hoping to see if the MSM & Dr. Phil address this "tapegate" issue next week. In the meantime, the saga contines & no word on Natalee's whereabouts. I don't know how her family copes with this misery, that appears to have no end in sight. God bless you Beth & family.

[ustt]

I have the full audio - not posting it because of the bandwidth and to make the example understandable. Believe me, after a lot of listening, slowing down, amplifying and applying different types of filters - I'm all but convinced he said, I would never do that. I can email the audio if someone wants it.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 26, 2005 8:42:27 PM

___________

so dan are you going to send your findings to the FBI and Dave Holloway?

[ustt]

I have the full audio - not posting it because of the bandwidth and to make the example understandable. Believe me, after a lot of listening, slowing down, amplifying and applying different types of filters - I'm all but convinced he said, I would never do that. I can email the audio if someone wants it.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 26, 2005 8:42:27 PM

___________

so dan are you going to send your findings to the FBI and Dave Holloway?

[ustt]

dan, help me understand. you are analyzing the soundbytes right? You don't have access to the 2 hours of tape, right?

[dreamquestrob]

Posted by: Dan | Nov 26, 2005 8:42:27 PM

~~~~~~~~~~

You've got mail..

[Dan]

so dan are you going to send your findings to the FBI and Dave Holloway?

I'm only working with what little I have, which is what everyone has heard from Dr. Phil. And I would waste the FBI's time sending this to them. I'm offering up the best opinion I can, and not suggesting I can replicate the analysis of the Dutch or the FBI.

I'm as anxious as everyone else in hearing the official analysis.

[letsbefair]

Play it backwards and he says "I buried Paul".

[letsbefair]

I also heard where OJ sworn he had nothing to do with killing Nicole and her friend. The whole clan should apologize to OJ for putting him thru hell.

He didnt do it cause he said so!

Posted by: Rubby | Nov 26, 2005 11:58:21 PM

There were mountains of evidence in that case. Don't tell me that if OJ had 10 days, he could have cleaned up the crime scene.

[ustt]

I also heard where OJ sworn he had nothing to do with killing Nicole and her friend. The whole clan should apologize to OJ for putting him thru hell.

He didnt do it cause he said so!

Posted by: Rubby | Nov 26, 2005 11:58:21 PM

There were mountains of evidence in that case. Don't tell me that if OJ had 10 days, he could have cleaned up the crime scene.

Posted by: letsbefair | Nov 27, 2005 12:40:27 AM
________

i know i'll be skewered for this, but i watched that whole trial of OJ (was laid up in bed after surgery for a long time). i listened to many witnesses who were never covered in the media. i have always thought the drug dealers associated with Nichole's friend (she had long dark hair) who had just gotten out of drug rehab.

To me the dog of Nichole's held the key to the murder. The dog would have ended up at OJ's with his bloody paw prints if it had been OJ. and instead the dog ended up running down the street in the opposite direction from OJ's house. (the dog knew OJ! and knew where he lived).

[letsbefair]

Posted by: ustt | Nov 27, 2005 1:06:05 AM

OJ's blood drops were at the crime scene. (he had a cut on his finger)

OJ's glove was at the crime scene (he was shown on TV football commmentary wearing the gloves and the Bruno Magli shoes)

OJ's was dripping blood in his own house from the cut.

Ron Goldmans shirt fibers were found in OJ's Bronco

Ron and Nicole's blood were found in OJ's Bronco

There's only 2 explanations for this. 1 the police planted all the evidence (including the cut on OJ's finger). Or 2 OJ was the murderer.

Fuhrman was not the racist. OJ's jurors were the racists. To them, it's ok to kill white people.

[danie]

also watched entire OJ case....bottom line IMHO if one watched the case (not the talking head analysis)the defense (all theatrics aside) were able to establish reasonable doubt regarding evidence thanks to Scheck/Neufeld DNA info; and Dr.Henry Lee and his doubt as to blood spatter, etc.; million other contributing factors...throw in the Furman tapes (jury instructed if witness lies in one instance...considered to lie in all, therefore disregard testimony)....

kinda interesting that "tapes" played a part in that case...here we are again dealing with tapes! as always...JMHO...

[danie]

back to subject of Skeeter's tape....i believed the edited Dr.Phil tapes were not of issue rather the entire tapes unedited which were submitted to FBI and Holland? may be wrong...

[joblo]

to letsbefair:

Furhman wasnt' racist? do u know what a racist is? do u know that on the 'furhman tapes' furhman bragged about how he'd planted evidence against blacks in the past in order to get a conviction, and made many, many racist comments about blacks? did u know that detective vanatter took 8 centilitres of oj's blood from the lab in an unsealed envelope (against procedure), drove around for a few hours, and when he came back it was missing 1.5 centilitres? did u know that the blood on the back gates of his house weren't found till several weeks after the murder and that it contained a lethal amount of edta, a blood preservative found in violes used to store blood? did u know that when the pigs first filmed the inside of his house there were no 'bloody socks' by his bed, but that they found them there later? did u know that the bloody socks had blood on both sides of the upper part? if he was wearing them there could only be blood on one side; blood on both sides means that blood was smeared on when the socks were off. did u know that the bloody glove that furhman found in the morning outside the house(several hours after the murder) were wet, when they should should have been dry and that weather reports for that day conclude that the morning dew could not have made the glove wet again? why don't u learn about the case before speaking out of ur arse.

[letsbefair]

why don't u learn about the case before speaking out of ur arse.

Posted by: joblo | Nov 27, 2005 3:02:37 AM

I guess there was enough evidence to convince the Santa Monica jury...

O.J. just happened to cut his finger, and bleed all over his house - the same night his X was sliced up? Sorry I ain't buyin it.

Plenty of rappers (and just about everyone else for that matter) use the same racial slurs that Fuhrman did. That doesn't make them racists.

[joblo]

nice answer. do me a favour and go call a black guy what furhman did and see if he treats it the same way as if one of his friends were saying it to him. ur either an absolute moron or really bad at arguing, i'll let everyone else decide, and by the way, grand juries almost always send cases to trial, the defense isn't even present, it's all prosecution, but u've got ur head so far up ur arse that u probably didn't even know that. by ur logic, anyone found 'not guilty' is actually guilty because the grand jury sent the case to trial. ur so dumb i can't even get angry i just feel sorry and wonder how u go through life with shite for brains. the only thing i hate more than stupid people are stupid people who think they're smart.

[fokje]

well the poor quality of the tape made me suspicious anyway. Even my cheap MP3-player is able to make a better record of a conversation when I would keep that in my jacket. Why is Deepak's voice recorded in such a lousy quality in the first place? Doesn't make sence at all.

[fokje]

I guess dr. Phil should take his medicins before he got involved in such case.

[dugo]

Hmmm .. I hear 'not' not 'never'.

[berry]

The damn music the Dr Phil showed dubbed into these copies makes it impossible to be sure of this. But, clearly, if you had a telling tape - the LAST thing you would do is cover it up with music. That alone tells me this is BS.

Posted by: Dan | Nov 26, 2005 9:33:34 PM

____________________________________

Are you saying the background music was not playing when Skeeters talked to Deepak? That it was added by the Phil show? And was the purpose to "muddle" Deepak's words. And was the underlying goal to create the impression of a confession to gang rape?

I hope someone is contacting the FCC.

[berry]

I do not for a minute think Deepak Kalpoe admitted to a gang rape - adding "you'd be surprised how easy it was". That's laughable.

The tape is a phony. There are penalites for those who doctor evidence of a crime.

[dreamquestrob]

The tape is a phony. There are penalites for those who doctor evidence of a crime.

Posted by: berry | Nov 27, 2005 8:24:39 AM
~~~~~~~~~

This tape is NOT evidence. It is entertainment. That is the legal argument. It was purchased by Dr. Phil and edited for entertainment purposes.

What is evidence is the original recording and the Dutch government and FBI had copies of it.

I have analyzed the small sample I recieved from Dan. I do not hear in it what Dan hears but I ahve not layered that part yet totally. He is right, the music starts in about that point in time.

But I have stripped away most of the back ground noise AND most of the music. Indeed the there is amplication issues here --- this copy is not very legible at all. supposedly the original is pretty crystal clear -- which casts some doubts in my mind as to the integrity of the producers who actually ordered the copying and editing. The beta tape itelf degrades the actual digital quality and I suspect much of the back ground is actually "TV" and video noise....

I want to get some more of the the original tape broadcast though in order to sample the background noice for removal. Dan can you either give me a link to the full broadcast excerpts or email me the link? What I will do is strip out the background and you can hear the actual voices better and clearer. The I will email you back the "stripped versions".

The way I do this is sample the back ground noise and then feed this profile into the computer which strips out the background throughout. I can do a fair job now, but unfortunately I do not have a big enough sample with large enough space gaps to sample the noise without also taking out some of the voice with it.

All in all the imporant thing to remember here is that the original digital quality was corrupted inthe transfer to beta tape -- then was further corrupted in the editing process and with the overlay of music (at strategic spots) and then further again by the broadcast, and then further again by the recording on video tape or however it was received. so there are several layers of corruption here that makes the recording almost worthless.

It would be really nice to have a digital copy of the original.

[26ANDCOUNTING]

We all know Dr. Phil only played the questions that could be incrminating. If the answers to those questions are altered as suggested by Dompig then obviously the original tapes do not have the answers that are supposed to be the smoking gun. The answers on the original are obviously not incriminating and probably show Deepak defending himself not confessing to Skeeters. Deepak spent 3 months in jail and didn't confess but spends an afternoon with Skeeters and does? I don't think so.. If it sounds too good too be true then it is!!