Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Statement Analysis: Thomas Meagher

  1. On September 22, 2012, Jill Meagher went missing at 1:45AM.   Statement Analysis is in bold type.  This is Thomas Meagher, husband, answering questions.  In a domestic situation, how the husband relates to the wife, linguistically, can often be indicative of their relationship.  A social introduction is the same in Statement Analysis as it is in life
    "My wife, Jill..." is a complete social introduction, using the name and title, with possessive pronoun.  This is associated with good relationships at this portion of the statement.  The context is important.  In some context, the other party already knows the name, so it would not be used in this manner.  We also take note of what names he uses for his wife.  We expect to hear her name used, or a pet name for her.  If her name is not in the interview, it is concerning as it might point to a problem in the relationship, as distancing language is used.  

    TM: Police are looking into um bank records today to see if there’s any activity and anything um so hopefully um they get a location off that if if the bankcard has been used cause ah that was the only thing that was with her, a bankcard and her phone, she left her purse at home. Um so hopefully something’s picked up with that .
    Note "a" bankcard and not her bankcard, yet he does say "her phone" and "her purse." 
    Note that he states that the bankcard was the only thing she had with her, which suggests that it is not with her currently.   

    Q: Any luck with the phone, has that been any help at all?

    TM: Um no not really I- w - the night she went missing I I rang her about-like hundreds of times but um the phone went- the phone rang but went to voice mail then about eight in the morning it just– the battery must have died it just went straight to v-voice mail so um the police were- I I asked the police to look into to kind of tracing it but I don’t I don’t know if we can if if the phones off. So um, I’m not sure how ah-how much help the phone’s gonna be.
    Pronouns are instinctive and should not be in error at any time.  We like to hear a subject answer for himself, with the pronoun, "I" which takes ownership of a sentence. 
    We also take note of any stuttering from a non-stuttering person.  The pronoun "I" when stuttered, is important. 
    "About, like" does not sound like an estimate but hyperbole.
    Broken sentences mean the subject has stopped himself = missing information.
    He reports that he asked the police to "look into kind of tracing" which is unusual, as police would know what they are doing.  This may be an attempt to portray himself in a   positive manner.
    He ends with "I don't know if we can..." which uses the pronoun, "we" indicating that he may consider himself at unity/cooperation with police.
    We listen carefully to how the husband addresses the wife to indicate the quality of the relationship.     
    Q; do you know what the police will be doing today?

    TM: They’re they’re just gonna do the bank records thing and that’s um I think they’re just doing ah a scan of the area as well. I think they’re down in [bumps microphone] sorry, excuse me, I think they’re in Hope Street right now doing a bit of the, um just a scan of the area ah, but other than that I don’t really know until they update me so...
    Here the word "just" is limiting what police would do, to the bank records, and then he adds in a "scan" of the area.  Why not a search?  Why not vigorous interviews of associates and contacts?  

    Q: What about yourself? Do you plan to do something, what do you do-
    Note the emphasis on Thomas, "yourself", and "you" and "you" in the question.  We now expect him to answer with the pronoun, "I":  

    TM: Well...we’re we’re still um doing lo-loads of postering, and facebook campaigning, twittering and all that stuff. But ah, we just want to get ah I’m doing loads and loads of interviews and media stuff, just just wanna get as much out there as possible you know, it’s it’s Friday night an-and Sydney Road, it’s you know, it’s busy, people have to have seen something or..ah- you know, somebody has to have seen Jill at some stage. Um so, I just want people to kind of really think if they’ve seen anything at all ah to contact the police.

    He does not answer for himself with the pronoun, "I", which is concerning.  Guilty people will often seek a psychological sharing of guilt with the use of "we" instead of using the pronoun, "I" in their statements. 
    "loads and loads" is repeated, sensitive, and he wants to be portrayed in a positive light.  We all do, yet when someone is missing, the focus is not upon anyone but the victim.  This is concerning and should cause police to look closely at his relationship with her. 
    Note the weakness here:  "I just want people to kind of really think if they've seen anything..." which may indicate sensitivity about interviewing others.  Those near her are going to be interviewed and asked about her relationship with her husband. 

    Q; So she’s a regular at the bar isn’t she?

    TM: Yeah
    note that he does not go beyond this question.  Since he normally does, this short answer would lead me to ask follow up questions.  

    Q:What, what have the guys or the, the staff and the owners said, like did they see her leave or anything like th-?

    TM: -They saw her leave yeah so um they said she left um maybe one thirty and ah that was um, she left with some work- work friends but I-I- th-that’s all they really know cause she went to another bar after that so um they don’t’ really know what happened to her after that but they’re really upset as well because obviously they know Jill and...um you know, that’s her bar, you know ,that’s where she always goes so.. . 

    Several issues here:  They don't "really" know
    They're upset "because" 
    "Obviously" means to take something without questioning.  
    The interviews with those at the bar appear to cause a sensitive reaction in the husband.  This also may be due to a poor or troubled relationship.  
  2. Q:Tom what are you going through? 

    TM: Ah hell (laugh) it’s just devastating but um ..yeah just trying to push on. Um as much as possible.
    Some people laugh nervously, but it is difficult to qualify.  Note that "just trying to push on" does not have a pronoun. 
    The word "but" refutes that which preceded it.  "It's just devastating but..."

    Q:What’s keeping you going?

    TM: Just ah hope, just hope somebody see-saw something or she just walk through the door.
    Note that the subject begins to say that he hopes somebody see something, then changes it to saw.  It is unusual for someone to change or correct verb tenses while speaking. 

    Q; Do you still think that could happen today?

    TM: I have to. I have to yeah.
    Why does he "have" to?

    Q: Tom what about the mention that she may have been having some issues with– there’s a quote in the paper today about a mid life crisis, all that sort of thing. Do you- is that
    TM: A mid life crisis in terms of....?(laughs)
    It is difficult to imagine a loving husband laughing while his wife is missing especially since she has been disparaged in the paper.  
    Please note that he does not come to her defense.  Please note her age:  29.   29 is not "mid life crisis age" for most.  It is young.  

    Q: Exactly.

    TM: Ah I don’t know. I don’t know anything about that.
    The victim has been disparaged in the paper, but he does not refute this.  If a newspaper put something negative about your missing spouse, how quickly would you rise to his or 
    her defense?
    I don't know anything about that is different than "No, she isn't!"

    Q: does that mean anything to you? 

    TM: Not at all.
    Note that the subject does not say, no, but rather not at all, which is a qualifier.  Does the subect have different levels of "knowing?"

    Q: Does it ring any bells at all?

    It would appear that the interviewer may have some information to the contrary. 

    TM: Not at all.

    Q:Was she having any issues at all?

    TM: Um. No, well, I mean her her dad’s not well. Um but other than that she was, she was rea-she’s really happy here, she’s really happy in Melbourne. We were just discussing that, like the day before she left – or she left or whatever happened. Um, so we were just discussing you know how happy we were here and you know I spoke to her before I left work and she was in great spirits. Everyone who was there that night said she was in really good spirits so um I don’t know I don’t know.

    This indicates a discussion took place about living in Melbourne.  There may have been a disagreement as being "happy" is repeated with the additional "really". 

    Please note that "discussion" is repeated, making it important, but he then adds that "happy we were here" in the past tense.   That she was in "really good spirits" may be in juxtaposition to being "really happy in Melbourne" for them.  Will they no longer be happy "here"?  Has the happiness come to an end?
    Is this a past tense reference of his wife indicating a belief or knowledge that she is dead?
    If he still has to believe she will come walking through the door, will they regain their happiness?
    This is very concerning.  When a spouse talks about happiness in the past tense in marriage it is indicative of a coming divorce.  Please note that this is not Solomonic maternal instinct of a child.   

    Note the continued use of the pronoun, "we" which suggests unity, yet without her name being used.  "Jill, my wife" would indicate a good relationship, using both her name and her status as his wife.  
    Police should seek to learn if there was a strong disagreement about being in Melbourne. 

    Q:Do you think there’s any chance she may have taken off and just needed, you know, by her own – 

    TM: It’s – I I I would think it unlikely, just given her character and you know um..it’s just it’s just really out of character you know so i don-I don – I wouldn’t’ think so.

    This is a very weak answer.  
    1.  We have the stuttering "I" which is concerning. 
    2.  We have "would think" which is a weak assertion, saying that he only "would" think (circumstantial possibility) it "unlikely" not wrong.  
    3.  Broken sentence:  He appears to be stopping himself saying "I don't think so" which still allows for someone to think otherwise, but he steps back even further with he only "wouldn't" think so (conditional) 

    Q:How’s the rest of her family going Tom..through this whole – 

    TM: Um, obviously ah yeah they’re devastated um they’re they’re over in Perth right now and just kind of they’re constantly in contact and um they’re obviously devastated, they’ve gone through a bit recently and you know it’s um it’s not easy on them at all yeah. Um her brother came over yesterday ah to help me out and he’s been fantastic um so you know, just have to keep pushing on I suppose yeah.
    "obviously" means to accept without question. He repeats it, which suggests that he may not know exactly how her family feels.  There may be some distance between him and his in laws.  The brother is praised, but his name is not used.  This suggests a less than strong relationship.  Also, portraying his brother in law as "fantastic" may be an attempt to praise him and bring unity.  

    If he knew how they were coping,  and was in close contact, it is expected that he would know what their plans are, therefore, the question is posed:  

    Q:Are they planning to make their way over here?

    TM: Ah I’m not sure yet um. You know as I said her dad’s not well at the moment so hopefully um ah we’ll see I don’t know at the moment. 
    He does not know. 
    We must take note of the relationship language:  

    There may be some distance between the subject and his wife's family as he does not use their names. 
    Although he was not asked any direct or substantial questions, there is enough in the interview to suggest problems in the relationship between them, and it may be a dispute over where they lived.  
    The relationship issues could have caused her to leave the home, which inevitably led to something else.  The husband neither implicates nor clears himself.  He shows a desire to portray himself in a positive light.  There would be much more information if strong questions had been posed to him.  It is not understood how he could not be asked relevant questions:

    1.  Are you a suspect?
    2.  Did you have anything to do with her disappearance?
    3.  Have you told me the truth?
    4.  Have you told police the truth?
    5.  Are you withholding information?

    6.  Have you taken a polygraph? 
    ...and so on. 

    It is very concerning that he referenced their happiness in the past tense.  Although this is not a "maternal instinct" issue, it is still something to be noted.  In marriages, it is never good.  
    There is enough here to be concerned about the relationship between them, and about the husband, himself.  
    He should write out a statement on what he did from the time he woke up that day until the following day when he spoke to police.



Tania Cadogan said...

TM: Um. No, well, I mean her her dad’s not well. Um but other than that she was, she was rea-she’s really happy here, she’s really happy in Melbourne.
I’m doing loads and loads of interviews and media stuff, just just wanna get as much out there as possible you know
Dropped pronoun in regard to geting stuff out there.
He repeats just twice not only minimising what he is doing, it also shows sensitivity.

You missed the "She WAS, she WAS rea-" then he changes toshe's.
Past tense is she not happy any more?
The fact he repeats it as well makes it sensitive.
He seems to be aware of tenses and catches himself when he slips up.

He is a mess red flags all over the place.
He is involved up to his eyeballs in her disappearance.
He knew there would be media interestand LE would be watching which is why he keeps stopping himself and correcting tenses.
He probably thought it would be easier than it is.
The darn journalists keep asking the wrong questions.
He maybe thought he could do the spiel, act the desperate husband and they would leave, he wasn't expecting probing questions.
I expect if he does any more interviews he will be better prepared even to perhaps reading a statement and no questions to be asked.

BostonLady said...

Mystery continues to surround the disappearance of Ms Meagher, with police revealing they were investigating whether her handbag had been planted in a Brunswick lane by someone connected to her disappearance. The 29-year-old's handbag was found discarded in the lane off Hope Street on Monday morning by a passer-by.

But Detective Inspector Potter said police had already searched that lane in the hours after Ms Meagher, an Irish national, was reported missing.

''There are two options, either police in the original search missed the bag or the bag has since been placed at that laneway after the police searched it originally,'' he told ABC 774, where Ms Meagher worked as a member of the Local Radio Victoria team.

The handbag contained Ms Meagher's credit card but not her mobile phone, which remains missing.

Ms Meagher is believed to have left Bar Etiquette at 1.30am on Saturday, intending to make the short walk to her home in Lux Way, after declining a colleague's offer to accompany her home. Her home is less than one kilometre from the bar.

.....A number of women have reported being attacked or followed by a vehicle in the same area of Brunswick where Ms Meagher vanished.

New CCTV footage also emerged yesterday of the ABC employee walking home on Saturday morning. The footage shows her walking north along Sydney Road, Brunswick, just south of Hope Street, at 1.41am.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-scour-the-home-of-jillian-and-tom-meagher-20120924-26gku.html#ixzz27Uj2c5G8


If they have footage showing her walking home, wouldn't it also show if something happened to her there?


BostonLady said...

Ut oh. One more thing. The husband said she left her purse at home. She only left with a bank card and cell phone. How then did they find the purse along the place she walked home ??

Someone is lying.

Anonymous said...

Rut roh..... or Ut oh as Ms. Boston put it.... Q:Tom what are you going through?

TM: Ah hell (laugh) it’s just devastating but um ..yeah just trying to push on. Um as much as possible.

I am curious about the questioner stuttering. Is it because they are busy thinking and stutter to stop and think about the question? I notice our President Obama stutters a LOT and so does his wife, First Lady Michelle. Is stuttering something someone does to "buy time?" I think stuttering is like doing the "Umm" , "uhhh" etc.

S + K Mum said...

In the UK a handbag and purse are different....... we put money in a purse and put the purse in a handbag. Maybe in Australia or Ireland they also use different terms?

I think her husband sounds suspicious but I wanted to add that - maybe she took a small 'going out' handbag with cash and one card for emergencies, leaving her purse at home in case she was to lose it. That's what I do haha

Anonymous said...

Just viewed a video of the area in which she went missing. Judging from the graffiti, I'd guess she has been snatched by a like kind.

On one wall there's rethoric about not having to leave their name; then, not far away, an anarchy symbol. Into the alleyway, in full blown hypocrisy, a dollar sign circled just as the "A" that represents the anacharist. "V" for Vendetta will tell how this will turn out since her wallet has been discovered after others already know it was never there in the first place.

Social media will wreck this case!

Anonymous said...

There is a quote in the Irish Sun from Tom where he again uses part tense in reference to his wife. He days "she was my best friend" I am on my phone or I would post the link

MissUnderstood said...

St..st..stuttering is n..n..not being able to get the words out. Some people stutter all the time. Some people only when they are nervous. One would need to know the speakers normal pattern - if they are a normal stutterer or not.

Ummmm and uhhhh is most likely stalling and/or thinking.

MissUnderstood said...

Hi Hobnob. How is SA applied to someone who normally, on an everyday basis stutters and is basically a nervous wreck when speaking to others/strangers? I know we have to look at their normal speaking pattern, but if they normall stutter, I assume SA is difficult to apply?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I would like an answer on that as well! Or mabey point me in the direction of an older piece you have wrote.

BostonLady said...

OT - Isabel Celis parents speak. This is the video. Once again, the father shakes his head no as he states he knows she will be found. They have painted Isabel's room and replaced all of her furniture. Why would they do this???? I would not want anything changed so I could remember every little thing. wow.


MissUnderstood said...

BostonLady, wow! I would think I would keep her room the same for HER too, assuming she was kidnapped, and I was expecting her to come home.

Anonymous said...

I just watched an interesting "Investigator" show.. The husband was found guilty, of killing both his wife and daughter, but every statement he made he used present tense. He used his wife and daughter's names, he used pronouns as "I" etc..... It was weird, because I just kept listening only to what he said on TV and thought, he is innocent, based on SA. ............/sigh the baby girl was only 6 years old.

I think these shows cut so many clips out that it is hard to use SA based on what they show in the one hour time.

Anonymous said...

@AnonymousSeptember 25, 2012 1:26 PM - I do understand what you say, kind of.... I just got into a similar disagreement this past weekend. Their was a girl (25ish years old) saying that if girls wear slutty clothes they DESERVE to be raped. I hope I am not reading your post right. NO ONE deserves to be raped. I was raped in the middle of the night(break in) and the police decided it was because the local newspaper posted a picture of me. (Not an excuse, in my eyes).

What ever she did, she did not deserve to die from anyones hand. She might have been living a less than great life. Maybe she had demons that she was dealing with, that is still no reason to kill her. And pretty women do deal with demons the same as ugly ones. So saying, "Look at her. Such a pretty girl." WRONG.... she was pretty but that does not mean she is perfect. She still should not die for her looks.

Jazzie said...

Interesting question and I've wondered about this too. A close friend of mine doesn't stutter on an everyday basis, only stutters when he's really drunk and depressed. Stutters the pronoun "I" frequently when in this state. When he stutters, it's a big red flag that he's in a very distressed state.

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder if they have repainted and replaced all her furniture because there might be incriminating evidence.

They found blood before in the bathroom and showe curtain i wonder if they feared blood elsewere on the furniture, carpet of walls or maybe cadaverine.
New everything means nothing incriminating in their eyes.

Cadaverine however can still be detected even afer being cleaned thoroughly or painted over (the same as with luminol)

Perhaps also they are getting rif of everything that reminds them of Isabel.
I would be interested to know if any of her clothing is still there,, hairbrushes and personal stuff.

It wouldn't surprise me if they have done the equivalent of erasing her presence from the house, no nasty reminders of her life.

I would be looking to see if there are any pictures of her on the walls.

BostonLady said...

Anonymous 1:26pm - you have issues. You are very angry, bitter and judgemental. You have no idea what has happened to this woman and you are already insulting and disparaging her?

There is no statement from the victim. The police are still trying to piece together what happened. You are basing your opinion on your own issues.

Justme said...

In answer to "was she having issues?" the said, "We were just discussing that, like the day before she left – or she left or whatever happened."
Then later he is asked if he thinks she might leave on her own and he says it would be out of character.

Tish said...

Thank you for this analysis Peter.
I agree Hobnob, lots of red flags for me too. A couple of other things that caught my attention:

We were just discussing that, like the day before she left – or she left or whatever happened.
He refers to her 'going missing' as having 'left'.

so um they don’t really know what happened to her after that but they’re really upset as well because obviously they know Jill
He deviates from the question of 'did the staff see her leave' to how the staff felt. It's unnecessary information to say they are 'really upset as well'. Isn't everyone upset? Who wouldn't be or isn't upset?

Um her brother came over yesterday ah to help me out
He considers the brother there to help him, rather than to help 'look for Jill'.

Of note:
TM stating she only had a bankcard and phone on her is in direct contradiction to her handbag being found in the lane. The lane was searched by police on Sunday with no evidence found. The handbag was found in plain sight, by a passer-by on the Monday morning.

BostonLady said...

Police have discovered the presence of a mystery man in CCTV footage of Jill Meagher as she walked home before her disappearance on Saturday morning.

This morning, police confirmed that CCTV footage will be examined frame-by-frame to determine whether the man was following the ABC employee in the minutes before she disappeared.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mystery-man-found-in-cctv-vision-of-jill-meagher-20120924-26gku.html#ixzz27X47TeqB


It may be a coincidence that someone else was walking along the same path but it does sound suspicious. Maybe they will be able to break it down and make it who it is. The article also states that while their apartment was being searched by LE, the husband was seen pacing on the balcony.

Another comment, unless Jill typically came home the next day after being out for the evening, not reporting her missing until the following afternoon seems concerning.

Anonymous said...

Here's a godd one concernining the $$ made off social media's attempt to make the world a better place: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14099349-confronted-about-child-porn-man-shoots-two-deputies-in-san-diego-county?lite

Is $50,000 an average price to pay for child porn these days? If so, it's no wonder people's children are missing, dead, permanently messed up and will abuse their own for the same reason in the future.

Lis said...

What a contrast to Etan Patz' parents.

Lis said...

"A number of women have reported being attacked or followed by a vehicle in the same area of Brunswick where Ms Meagher vanished."

I wonder if she was aware of this? Not very wise to be walking home alone, especially after drinking.

Tish said...


This is the CCTV footage of Jill Meagher. She is seen talking to man in a blue hoodie (he walks past frame twice before talking to her). It places her on the street at 1.41am. She has her phone in her hand and is presumably dialing her brother for the call she made to him at 1.43 - 1.45am.
She is said to be carrying two bags in the footage; an ABC bag and her handbag.
I'm sorry, I cannot find video of the press conference to link. When asked if Police had looked at footage from the Meagher's appartment building the Detective said yes. He was asked if it showed Thomas leaving the building to search for his wife but he would not comment on any details of that footage. When asked if it showed Jill Meagher getting home the Detective baulked and said 'She did not arrive home, no.'
I appologise I don't have the direct quotes of that. I found it odd the Detective could not say outright that she was not in the appartment biulding footage and why he could not confirm that the footage backed up the husbands story of going looking for his wife at 4am. It would make sense he went looking on foot using the pedestrian entrance/exit. But I wonder if he went by car - which would not make sense, given the closeness of the bars and that walking would be more thorough if she was hurt in an alley or lane. Is this why the Detective would not comment?

Anonymous said...

She is so beautiful. How sad.

Tish said...


This clip of the CCTV footage is a bit better - the first link I gave cut off the right hand side of the footage.

Paradox said...

From his language it would seem that he does not have a good relationship with Jill.

Also, he has not made a plea to her or her abductors.

With the bankcard, he is hoping that if she has used it since disappearing this will give them a location, but surely the main reason to check if she has used the card is proof that she is still alive/ok. This seems lost on him.

"Note that he states that the bankcard was the only thing she had with her, which suggests that it is not with her currently."

The bank card was later found in her handbag in an alleyway. The police suspect the bag was planted there by someone because they had searched the area earlier and seen no sign of it.

I hope the police have been asking him the right questions, even if the journo's haven't.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Missunderstood, Anonymous and Jazzie.
SA can be done on anyone with a speech impediment such as a stutter, all we need to do is look for their normal speech pattern, what words they normally stutter on for example.

Stutterers will have particular sounds they have a problem with so when listening to them listen for what normally causes them to stutter and what words they have no problem with i have a friend who stutters badly (or really well depending on your point of view)
If they stutter on words they don't normally have a problem with then pay close attention to the topic being discussed.
The temptation with stutterers who have a bad stutter is to finish sentences for them.
Don't, especially if analysing their statement since you are then interpreting what you think they meant and thus end up analysing your own words as well as theirs.
If you are the one asking questions you can always go back to the topic/question which caused them to stutter and try phrasing the question differently to see if they change their language, if the answer is consistent or if they stutter and where.
You can then can ask a non sensitive question and see if they stutter and if so what sounds they struggle with.

It is a case of learning what is their normal pattern of speech, their rhythm so to speak.
Analysing someone with a stutter is harder work than someone who doesn't however they will all have a pattern of speech which is normal for them.
I know when my friend is out of sorts as her stutter is terrible compared to when she is fine.

If you have friends who stutter you will have learnt over time what words and sounds they struggle with, it is the same with analysis,genral chitchat about non sensitive topics will give you an idea where the stutter appears, they are usually consistent regarding the sounds so once you see where they have the stutter, look for where else it shows or doesn't show. (it is interesting to note that some stutter when talking yet sing with no stutter)

MissUnderstood said...

Thank you Hobnob. I appreciate the time you take to answer others questions (mine included of course)!!

Randie said...

When someone says they are "sorry"....How old? I need you to calm down.

"I’m sorry she’s she’s only three."
Please note "I'm sorry"has entered into the subject's language. This is always noted no matter why the subject is using these words (see Casey Anthony's 911 call)
We red flag it because it enters the language of the guilty. It does not conclude guilt (we do not make conclusions on a single indicator) but is part of an overall view.
We wonder if there is guilt within the caller that causes the words, "I'm sorry" to enter the language.

When was the last time you saw him?

It’s a girl. This morning. Real early. I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu."

This guys bumps the microphone and says sorry

Anonymous said...

If you would liκe to get much from this articlе then you have to аpρlу thеse strаtеgіes to your won weblog.
Also visit my blog Loans for Bad Credit

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I dοn't even understand how I ended up here, however I assumed this publish was good. I don't recognіse who yоu might be however definitelу you are gоing to a wеll-knoωn bloggеr foг those who are not
аlready. Chеers!

Μy page - fast payday loans
My weblog ; fast payday loans

Anonymous said...

You're so cool! I don't believe I've read through something like this before. So great to find another person with a few unique thoughts on this issue. Really.. thanks for starting this up. This site is one thing that is needed on the internet, someone with some originality!

Here is my web-site payday loans bad credit
Have a look at my web site - payday loans bad credit

Anonymous said...

It's remarkable for me to have a web site, which is useful in favor of my know-how. thanks admin

My homepage :: instant cash
My page - instant cash

Anonymous said...

I am truly gratеful to thе οwner of this web
pаge ωho has shared this gгeat post at at this

My wеbρage ... same day payday loans
Have a look at my blog post : same day payday loans

Anonymous said...

Unquestionаbly imagіne thаt whіch you
stated. Your favοrite justіfication appeaгed to be on the net the
simplest thing to understand of. I say to уou, I ԁefinitely get annoyеd at thе sаmе time aѕ
folκs thіnk about issues thаt they just don't understand about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing with no need side effect , folks could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Feel free to surf to my webpage ... quick cash loans

Anonymous said...

It's really very difficult in this active life to listen news on TV, thus I simply use world wide web for that purpose, and take the most up-to-date news.

my web site: bad credit loans

Anonymous said...

I know thіs site gives quаlitу based ρosts аnd
extra іnformаtion, іs there any otheг sitе which provіdes thеse thіngs
in qualitу?

Alѕo visit my websitе - Engagement Rings

Anonymous said...

Wonderful artiсle! We aгe linκіng to this pаrticularly great post on our ѕite.
Kеep up thе great writing.

Stoр by mу weblog :: short term loan

Anonymous said...

Can І simply sаy what a relief to find somebodу who гeally understandѕ what they're talking about on the net. You certainly understand how to bring a problem to light and make it important. A lot more people really need to check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you'гe not more ρopular sіnce уοu surelу havе the gift.

my pаge - weight loss

Anonymous said...

I just like the valuable infoгmatіon you pгoѵidе on уour articleѕ.

I wіll bookmaгk your weblog and check again right here regularly.

I'm moderately certain I will be informed a lot of new stuff proper here! Best of luck for the next!

My page how to lose weight
My webpage > how to lose weight

Anonymous said...

I alωaуs usеԁ to read paгagгaph іn neωs papers but now as ӏ am a useг of net so frоm now I am usіng net
for ρoѕts, thanks to web.

Also νisit my webрage: payday loans

Anonymous said...

So where did you get your qualifications as a statement analyst? You and your supporters must be all having your heads in the sand now for deciding the husband is guilty. Most important, I hope you had(note past tense) the minimal amount of decency to apologise

Anonymous said...

Heya i'm for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.

My blog ... payday loan
my webpage :: payday loan

Anonymous said...

This іs ѵery attentiоn-grabbіng, You're an overly professional blogger. I have joined your feed and look ahead to looking for more of your great post. Additionally, I have shared your website in my social networks

Here is my blog ... Instant Payday Loans

I said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I wonder if, now that you've proven completely and utterly wrong on everything you have posted here, whether you have the guts to apologise to Tom. I wonder if having absolutely no sleep and no experience dealing with the media EVER comes into consideration when posting your ridiculous analyses. I wonder whether you're going to claim, like every other dim witted speculator that it was 'just your opinion'. Never mind that this is a real human being that doesn't deserve your fucking nonsense. I would hate if anything that happened to Tom, happened to you, but if it did, I would hate it if you came across people like you. Go fuck yourselves. Dickheads

Anonymous said...

Oh man - I just realised that some of the responses in agreement with this idiocy are from as late as April....what the fuck is wrong with you people?? Not only do you not have the decency, humanity or moral fortitude to issue an apology. Not only do you still leave this post up, you still praise it, even though you're completely incorrect. Do you really not see anything wrong, or even morally ambiguous with this. Shame on all of you. This blog is a fucking sick joke.

Habundia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.