Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Thomas Meagher on Gillian's Whereabouts

Please note the use of the pronoun "I" in his statement about not knowing where she is.  (below)





Thomas Meagher

"She's my best friend. she's um, you know she's,just  she's,  this is something she just doesn't do.

She was with her, a group of her friends there and then the last person to see her got into a cab and she was going to walk home, and and she hasn't been seen since. "

"I have a feeling that something somebody did something to her,or she's um, you know  a I just don't know where she is, I'd love to just  know where she is or what happened."

I had trouble making out what he said but if this above is accurate, he says he does not know where she is. He does not say he doesn't know what happened, only that he'd love to know what happened.

Other than the word "just", he uses the first person singular, "I" to connect to not knowing where she is.  This is strong. 

 This is my concern about the reporting:  Was it a direct question he responded to, or was this him speaking on his own?  Would he have a need to even say that he doesn't know where she is?  Or, was it a question posed, even conversationally?  The journalism covering this case has been poor.

Then, he begins to say that something happened to her, or someone did something to her and he would "just love to know..."  If he believed something bad happened, why would he just "love" to know?

Thank you to those who corrected the transcript.

In prior analysis, he showed sensitivity indicators about their relationship.  Here he tells us he "just does not know where she is".  These must be viewed together.  Sadly, I wonder about their relationship and if, perhaps, he did not want her out at this hour with her co-workers, perhaps one in particular. "She's my best friend" may indicate regret especially when taken in context, and with his lack of using her name.  He does not tell us what it is she doesn't do (not come home), but thus far, we are hearing of a troubled relationship.

The quote as to their relationship that shows sensitivity:  

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, that 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 for 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."


A husband speaks of his wife's happiness in the past tense is indicative of a very bad marriage headed for divorce.  Because his wife is missing, the past tense reference has an added concern. 

Note that "happy" is sensitive, with "really" and via repetition. 

The number of "lefts" is very sensitive and concerning.  Was she planning on leaving him?  Is this why she was out so late drinking?  Is this why he attempted to call her at 2AM?

His use of the word "we" shows he considered them to be a couple.  Did she consider their relationship in the same way?  

If he issues a reliable denial, we won't further the issue about the relationship, similar to the Kyron Horman case.  


44 comments:

Jazzie said...

Bringing up first names. Something in SA.

I don't know if my husband uses my first name when he's talking to strangers. I sometimes don't elaborate and only say "my husband". Sometimes I just say his first name out of the blue to anyone. Sometimes I use both "my husband" and his first name.

I am still confused about this issue/use of "first name basis" in SA, especially in the context of talking to medical/first responders/reporters as opposed to strangers (which most of the afore mentioned would be strangers).

MissUnderstood said...

I wonder about that also Jazzie. I don't use first names for anybody, unless the person I'm speaking with, personally knows who I'm speaking about.

I actually find it strange (personally) when someone talks to me about someone I don't know, and uses their name. I have to ask, who? Who is that?

Jazzie said...

When I read Tom's description of Gillian as "my best friend" I felt this is his idealistic, romantic view. It maybe be true for him. We don't know what Gillian thinks/feels. It's hard to know what is the truth. Everyone knows their own story. Some actually will "own" it, others keep recreating it. Who's to say how far we can read into someone's story? How much of the truth can we extract?

Randie said...

1. "this is something she just doesn't do" why is he using "this", he should have used the word "that".......

2. Before he said "her bar" now he says "her friends"....these words show tension and seperate lives.

3. "somebody did something to her" are framed words.

4. He says he would love to know where she is. Love? How about "I DEMAND to know where she is and who took her!!!!!!~!" His words are too soft.

5. He says "or".....he would love to know where she is OR what happened. Not ok! I would demand both! He is saying he will take one or the other...

Randie said...

"Earlier, before the forensic team started combing the apartment, he and his brother-in-law had put on a brave face by laughing and joking with camera crews outside the apartments."


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/true-crime-scene/bag-hunch-leads-to-change-in-focus-in-the-homicide-investigation-of-the/story-fnat7jnn-1226481399691

No way would i beable to laugh or joke if my husband was missing

VLW said...

Good observations!

Anonymous said...

You don't know that you wouldn't joke and laugh. My grandparents died 6months apart. The first time I ever saw my Dad cry was when my Granny died on the 6months anniversary of the my Grand dad's burial. It was within a few hours that friends and loved ones had gathered and everyone was laughing, sharing stories, etc.... When we went home, my Dad cried so hard he vomited. 30 minutes prior you would have thought it was a party, not a mourning.

I usually say my husband or my kids, or my friend as well. I don't generally use names if it's someone that doesn't know them.

Randie said...

No---I would not be able to laugh or joke.....



Peter, something else bothers me..... the words I am concerned about I put in capital letters.


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, 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 FOR 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."

He uses the word "left" way too much.


Randie said...

Here is another quote from Thomos:

"I spoke to her on the phone before I left work Friday at 5 o'clock. She was in good spirits, she was going out and she was happy. I also got a text message from her at a quarter to ten," says Thomas Meagher."

http://www.realitychatter.com/t4162-jill-meagher-missing-in-australia-since-september-23-2012

Peter, I tried to find an article you wrote about using the word "phone"....I can't quote from it because I cant find it. It said something like the person who uses the word phone is likely the murderer..... Help me find this information.



Tish said...

I had a couple of differences in my transcript:


http://video.news.com.au/2282807282/ABC-radio-employee-missing-in-Melbourne?area=videoindex17

TM: “She’s my best friend, she’s um....you know she’s just ah she’s – this isn’t something she doesn’t do so um..yep ...excuse me. “

TM: “She was with a-her group of frien – the same group of friends there and then um the last person to see her um got in a cab and she was gonna go walk home um and she hasn’t been seen since.”

TM: “I have a feeling that something somebody did something to her or .. she’s um you know..I just don’t know where she is, I’d love to just know where she is or what happened or..”



Seamus O Riley said...

Tish, thanks for the correction.

Randie, the mentioning of a phone can sometimes tie someone to the crime scene as a "link" of sorts. It does not mean that this person is the murderer, only that a "phone" is like a person. Phones do not talk: people talk, using phones.

We highlight phones for this reason.

I don't like that he has a need to tell us he "just" doesn't know where she is, but it is difficult due to the editing. Was this in response to a question?

I have updated the article...thanks.

Peter

Peter

Anonymous said...

He sounds exasperated and insecure-trying to be hip and have his/her friends-wondering why did she marry me when there are many other guys out there.Perhaps his first thought was she left him. Now that other information is coming in, bet he's scared.

Where was he that night? What about his friends? Where do they hang out?

Anonymous said...

They use words such as "keen" often. After reading some of the articles, it is clear they aren't examining the family stucture- going back to the grave on both sides- but are reporting what is on the surface as they have much more knowledge already that isn't out there. They do not torment others for advertisment space...yet.

Tish said...

http://media.theage.com.au/news/national-news/police-forensics-search-meagher-home-3663676.html
TM:..Maybe if you ask the police ...I-I- you know, they’ll they’ll they’ll know more than I do, do you know what I mean, so ah
Q:How are you holding up Tom? [?]
TM: Ahh you know the same, it’s it gets worse you know (small laugh?). But um, yeah I yeah I- like you – like the police would have more updates than I do so um, probably you’d be better off talking to them at the moment.
Q: What do you make of the fact that um, they’re saying now that the handbag may have been planted in that in the lane?
TM: Um, yeah I don’t know. I don’t’ know, ah. Sorry I I’d have to , I’m sorry um I don’t know about- anything about that um....sorry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guqyKNewW0k
TM: I just want people to keep going with um with all the facebook stuff and all the postering as as much as possible um and if Jill’s watching it[?] just just come home and you know just let us know you’re safe or let us know where you are ah ..we just want to know you’re ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9uMkg5T00A
1:13 TM: I’m trying to remain positive but I mean it’s so out of character that ah I’m just fearing that you know something’s happened someone’s done something to her or. So um yeah that that’s that’s not a good feeling.
__________________________________________________________________________________

I find it interesting that he 'doesn't know anything about the handbag being planted'. That wasn't the question. This was at least 2 days after Jill went missing - where did he 'search' for her at 4am and in the following 2 days (Saturday/Sunday) did he not walk down that lane even once to know that 'he' didn't see the bag there(in plain sight)?

MissUnderstood said...

Homicide squad make arrest in Jill Meagher case

HOMICIDE detectives investigating the disappearance of Jill Meagher are holding a man in custody for questioning in a possible breakthrough in the mysterious case.

Victoria police confirmed late today a 41-year-old man from the north Melbourne suburb of Coburg had been arrested and taken to the homicide squad's St Kilda Road headquarters.

No charges have been laid.


Brunswick local Dan Gregson, one of five people captured in the bridal shop footage, said he walked past the man wearing the blue hoodie about a minute before the man stopped to talk to Ms Meagher.

"I don't remember that guy's face, you don't think to pay attention to everyone's face," Mr Gregson said. "

"I told the police he was just a nondescript looking guy. There was nothing strange about him or I would have noticed."


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-flood-melbourne-streets-after-jill-meaghers-disappearance/story-e6frg6nf-1226482872570

Anonymous said...

It would seem as though she had been threatening to leave him but during the last couple of days she appeared to be happy, said she liked her job, and liked Melbourne; then when she didn't come home he is getting nervous and worried that she has left him after all. He calls her during the day and earlier during the evening and she sounds fine, then she doesn't come home.

He is pacing and worried as the evening wears on when she doesn't come home and starts calling her again later, only to get no answer. He doesn't know what to think and finally starts walking to find her, back and forth he goes, then back home to see if she showed up yet, then walking and waiting some more. He misses the one text message where she tried to text him to get him to come down to the bar and has no idea she has texted him. He has a long night of frustration and worry otherwise he would have been asleep as he works during the day time. She still doesn't answer, he's had no sleep and morning comes and he hasn't been able to find her. Now he doesn't know whether she left him or what has happened to her, is confused and has no idea.

Had she left him before? It seems obvious that in their last couple of days he thought she was happier, now she's disappeared. It seems reasonable that he would wonder, 'did she leave me or did someone do something to her?' Now he relates that if only someone could hear from her and where she is at least he would know she is okay and he would be relieved just to know that. That's my take at this point, until more info is released by investigators.

For instance, was he angry at her for being in the bar so late when he was expecting her home hours earlier? How did he manage to miss her text message, or did he? Why wouldn't he have gotten her text message later when he used the phone again? What was really on that text message, or was there one? Did he have a car and could he be the one who picked her up off the street, got in a fight with her, killed her in anger and hid her body? Or did he have a friend or relative who drove him to pick her up and that's when it happened? There was a car that drove by her as she was walking home, made a quick u-turn and doubled back. Could he have been in that car?

We need more info before making any judgement as to whether he was involved in her disappearance and if he had anything to do with her purse being planted on a street a day later. I also wonder about the person who said he offered her a ride home as they walked out of the bar together and she refused. Why did she turn down the ride? Even with her home such a short distance away, who would refuse a ride home at that hour of the morning in that neighborhood, which she apparently did since she was seen on video walking alone, but did he come back? Many unanswered questions.

Anonymous said...

Sierra Le Mar statement analysis was wrong or the interpretation of it here was all wrong. It appears to be all wrong again. It makes me question all of it and all of the other cases you have presumed guilt. You can come back and make excuses about it showing sensitivity and deception, but you presume guilt. You say you presume innocence but not really. You twist all of the interpretation to indict them. Did you ever apologize to Sierra Mom or her boyfriend?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Miss Understood, I did not see your post before I made mine. I'm glad to see someone has been arrested in her disappearance, and I hope he is the right one, as I did not feel (and still don't) that her husband had anything to do with it. Thanks for the links.

MissUnderstood said...

http://www.news.com.au/national/one-of-six-people-seen-on-crucial-cctv-comes-forward-as-police-probe-abduction-theory-on-missing-jill-meagher-and-plea-for-witnesses/story-fncynjr2-1226482146903

More in this article from Dan Gregson, plus a quote from the woman who claims the same man (in the blue hoodie) tried to previously grab Jill. I tried to copy and paste the quotes, but I'm having technical difficulties.

MissUnderstood said...

Anonymous, I understand your frustration, but I don't think SA is/was wrong exactly. Sensitivity and even deception can be noted in someones statements, but that doesn't mean the person is guilty of whatever the charge is. The sensitivity/deception may be linked to the relationship or some other aspect of a case, but not actually guilt (of murder or whatever crime is in question). It depends where in the statement the sensitivity is noted - sensitivity while just speaking about the missing person and their relationship, or actually sensitivity while speaking about the possible crime. Jill's husband was never actually asked publicly (that I noticed) if he kidnapped, harmed, murdered, etc her. His answer to that type of question is what SA needed.

Anonymous said...

I am another anon who agrees with you Anon @ 4:27 a.m. I was appalled to see how Sierra LeMar's mother was tarred and feathered in statement analysis, then in the end she had nothing to do with her daughter's murder and disappearance. They surmised she had had this huge fight with Sierra that morning, or the night before, even showing Sierra's photo in disaray as if that proved she did something to her.

They even tore her to shreds because some did not like the look on her face, the way she held her head, the way she passed out flyers in the middle of the street during high traffic, the way she didn't moan when they thought she should have or because she didn't parade her boyfriend around in front of the cameras.

I am just as appalled to see how now they won't even acknowledge how they smeared that woman, like it didn't even happen. No ma'mam, they never apologized to that woman.

Then there's the Ramseys. Don't try to tell ME these opinions aren't personal. In a pigs eye they aren't. You can read the sheer hatred in them.

You can also see how quickly posts get deleted that questions their authenticity or says anything else they don't like. This isn't about getting to the truth, this is about agreeing and justifying ones opinions. Wasted time.

Seamus O Riley said...

Sierra's mother showed extreme sensitivity and defensiveness about her boyfriend. Those without statement analysis pointed this out on the Nancy Grace show. She did a good job acting poorly.

We did not conclude that she or the boyfriend killed Sierra.

I concluded that the mother lied about the relationship between herself and her daughter, and that there were problems specifically between the boyfriend and Sierra.

I stand behind that analysis today. It was correct.

Peter

Seamus O Riley said...

As to the Ramseys, as Patsy once wrote, "grow a brain." Behavioral analysis and Statement Analysis point to guilt, and cover up. It it an emotional issue for some where they see red and cannot go further.

In the case of Kyron Horman, readers stopped posting sensitivity indicators from his mother, respectfully. There was no point since she was not involved. I posted last night about Thomas Meagher: sensitivity indicators are about their relationship and with a reliable denial, we would not post any more indicators about the relationship because, specifically, it is not related to the disappearance.

Peter

Jen said...

I agree with what you are saying about mourning being at times an emotional roller coaster but I don't think that's what we are talking about here...he shouldn't be mourning her unless he knows she is gone and then I could understand fond reminiscing, however at this point she is missing and presumed to have been attacked or had 'something done to her'...so in that case I would find it hard to justify joking & acting lighthearted as most people would be sick with worry & tormented by the thoughts of what may be happening to their loved one. I also agree with Randie...he says, 'I'd love to know where she is or what happened'..., how about pleading for her safe return or a message for her to hold on because they are doing all they can to find her? Just my opinion but it sounds a little shady...we shall see!

Seamus O Riley said...

Using the "I" in not knowing where she is, is very strong.

Anonymous said...

"I have a feeling that something somebody did something to her,or she's um, you know a I just don't know where she is,

--when he stated "or she's um" - he self censored. Perhaps he knew that she was likely dead from the police, and he couldn't bring himself to say "she's dead". No one pointed this out in the analysis and it would have shown some sensitivity towards him, just like a mother with a missing child not wanting to accept that.

Anonymous said...

Are you from Florida?

Anonymous said...

Who is this Seirra Lamar? I've seen this come up before. Guess I'll find out.

Most of these bloggers and fans of Nancy Grace will blame and bash almost anyone, Ms. Seirra fan. It's their nature as they think and act superior as they gather those less fortunate to wizz on. Take some good from it as there is at least a little. Most is derogatory in nature. Pardon my spelling, please.

VLW said...

More food for thought... Remember the case where the little girl went missing in the midwest and the father was talking about fixing her bike? Statement analysis was picking up sensitivity indicators with that set of parents, too, but a neighbor was the one who, as it turned out, murdered the little girl. It is troubling that SA can cause us to misconstrue what is being communicated, though so often it turns out to be spot-on.

BostonLady said...

I don't know why Sierra Lamar is brought up in this discussion. The cases are nothing alike. The anonymous posting his/her anger points out disparaging remarks made about the way Sierra's mother looks, facial expressions, and nothing about the actual statements. This is statement analysis, not body, facial or micro expression analysis. Perhaps like Billie Jean Dunn's lawyer, they are mixed up about what is discussed here. :)

Onto the subject at hand, this beautiful 29 year old woman is most likely murdered and it could have been prevented had she taken the cab ride offered by her co-worker. In looking at where she walked, I can't imagine walking that alley way, alone in either the dark or light. It's pretty creepy looking. But, if she did this as a normal walk and felt safe, it would be hard to encourage her to get into the cab since it was just minutes from where she was going.

Jill's husband seemed visibly distressed on the videos of his news conference. I think his stuttering and umm's ahh's are part of his normal speech pattern. I have a brother in law from Ireland and he speaks fast and does some of the similar stuttering.

This is such a very tragic case.

rob said...

When you watched Sierra's mother, did you not feel 'somethings not right here'. I am no good at statement anaylis, but I still get a feeling, when something is just not right. Doesn't mean the person is guilty, but maybe has something else they don't want exposed.

Seamus O Riley said...

BL, one of the anonymous posters hates STatement Analysis because of Patsy Ramsey. S/A cannot be right because Patsy is innocent: this is her thinking. Most comments get spammed out, but some get through.

There were readers here who thought Sierra's mother was guilty. It was not in her language. She showed deception about her relationship with her daughter and about her boyfriend. She also accepted Sierra as dead fairly early on.

I will get a post tonight, or this weekend, about not jumping to a conclusion.

Peter

rob said...

As to the people questioning the SA. I lost my only son 5 years ago. It was the hardest thing I have ever experienced. In talking to family and friends, even the police, I talked one way. But if I had spoken to the media, I would have never went into the detail that I normally went into. Because I would not have wanted my personal misery to be published for everyones viewing pleasure. That said, if this man did not want his wife going to bars til late without him, or if they were having marital problems, who could blame him for not spelling it all out on tv. I would have still told investigators, but it wouldn't be everyones business.
But still, some media hounds, like Debra Bradley, can't tell enough. That is one thing that makes me think she is guilty. She thinks she is so smart, like Patsy Ramsey, that she can cook up a story that no one can NOT believe. It's all part of the analysis.

Jewels said...

I was the one that commented earlier and it does make me doubt it. It can be explained away but I want to believe that SA works, but then things like this happen, especially when everyone twists it to take what is said to prove guilt, and then it doesn't. I think the Ramseys are guilty. I have always believed that. I believe Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, the McCann's, Debra Bradley, etc... are guilty. I'm just now shaky about how to feel about SA. I do believe that if you go on and make assertions, even subtle assertions, about someone's guilt, you should post an apology if they are found to not be guilty such as in the LeMar case and this case.

Jewels said...

I should say I was anon 4:27. I brought up Sierra's Mom because it was another case that was discussed hear and while Peter might not have said the mother was guilty, the speculation that abounded in the comments certainly did. The comments go over the top with speculation. People assume guilt, not just deception. I totally agree with the premise that you can have deception for other reasons but in the comments section the two get twisted.

Seamus O Riley said...

Jewels,

who is your post directed to?

Readers? The author of the analysis? Someone else? The Nancy Grace Show?

When there is a "who done it?" and someone is wrong in an online discussion, should they apologize?

In Sierra case: I posted that the mother was deceptive about Sierra, and attempted to portray her relationship with her in a most flattering and untrue manner. She also lied about the boyfriend in the home when Sierra left the house: On National Television, on the Nancy Grace Show. She changed her story and the other guests brought it up.

I did not post that the mother killed her and the commentators on the Nancy Grace Show did not either. I do recognize that some readers did; some anonymously and some not. It was there opinion.

In the case of missing 7 year old, Kyron Horman, there were sensitive statements made by the mother. After reliable denials and truthful statements came from her and from Kaine Horman, I did not analyze her statements, as it was not related to Kyron's disappearance. I posted this, and other readers followed suit. Since it was unrelated, it would serve no purpose, and I was glad they did so. I would like the same thing to be about Thomas Meagher. If you know analysis even a little bit, you can see there was unhappiness and there is no purpose in adding to it because it is not related to her death. His wife was out at a bar with others at 1:30AM while he was home alone. Distancing language and other sensitivity indicators show lots of hurt. It will not further justice to point them out.

Regarding Sierra's mother, Nancy Grace commentators called her on the statements but they did not accuse her of killing her daughter. One, in particular, wanted to know why the story of the boyfriend changed.

But I read the transcripts: no one accused her.

I did not accuse her.

Some readers thought she did it.

Who do you think owes an apology to whom?

Peter

Lemon said...

Some of the confusion comes because certain readers mistake comments on 'deception' for 'guilt'. In their minds, one equals the other. They see what they want to see to argue and disagree, and aren't interested in Statement Analysis at all. Their emotional attachment to a point of view or their own personal issues make SA impossible for them.

Comments made by Sierra's mother did show deception, this does not mean she is guilty of killing her daughter. Peter's reminder about not jumping to conclusions is a point well taken.

Jewels said...

Peter, I have been off dealing with a medical issue this afternoon. If you didn't accuse, I am sorry for thinking you did. I will have to go read after I get my children to bed so I can provide you with the comments I was speaking of. Lemon, I agree deception does not mean guilt. I am intelligent enough to realize that. The tone and flavor of commenters can seem to go against that premise though and it does frustrate me, even when I'm sure I've been guilty.

Randie said...

Good Catch Tish.....

Also, this is the 3rd time he says "sorry"!

Anonymous said...

There could be many reasons Sierra LeMar's mother might have shown possible (concept of) deception in portraying herself before the media. Where is it written that a mother (or other parental figure) cannot have a conflict or dispute with their teenage child? Are you people implying that you've never had a disagreement with your teenager? And just suppose that child went missing shortly after or during that conflict? Would you want the whole world to know about it? So what, if she did not want her family affairs put on the street to defend and for all to critique. Who would? Would you? Wouldn't you also try to conceal these conflicts? Of course you would. Does that mean you didn't love your child? Does that make you their killer? NOT.

So, there had been some dissention in the home. Hadn't Sierra's mother recently moved Sierra out of her school district and away from friends that she loved into a new and strange area where she had no one and now has to start her life over? True, and in Sierra's mind, all because her mother wanted to live in a different area with her boyfriend. You bet there are going to be some conflicts with Sierra that would involve both mother and boyfriend. It's a real tragedy that Sierra's needs meant less than her mother and boyfriend did, but that's exactly what happened, which ultimately led to Sierra's murder that none could have predicted.

The mother, who is already torn because her daughter is missing, is having to defend herself right and left when she knows neither she nor her boyfriend had anything to do with Sierra's disappearance; now having to live with her own guilt because she knows it is her fault for putting her boyfriend above her daughter's well being, and is torn between trying to keep their personal life private from the minds and mouths of a vicious media and a relentless public.

Well, one thing we know for sure, neither she nor her boyfriend had anything to do with it; I just hope they can find some level of peace (doubtful) in being able to live with themselves for ever putting Sierra in that position in the first place, all for their own selfish desires (as so many mothers ((and fathers)) do!), and that the beautiful Sierra rests in eternal peace.

Now a similar scenerio has happened to Gillian's caring husband Thomas, who obviously had nothing to do with her vicious rape and murder, while prying minds inquire into their personal (possibly?) floundering relationship. Without a shred of evidence? Wouldn't you think the poor man already has enough to deal with? Excuse me, but if that is the case, wouldn't that be their private business? This is unfair and wrong. Such a tragedy. Ditto for the close boyfriend of 22 years of the 63 year old woman who has been found murdered. NOW, someone says he is guilty?! An out and out accusation no less! Without a shred of evidence?

Unbelievable how some can jump to such broad conclusions without a shred of evidence, like anyone on this earth has the all-seeing eye of whose guilty of what, how they did it and what they did; like God has appointed that ONE exclusively to be the judge of all guilt, with only their idle mind telling them this and with no evidence; (that one keeps saying "grow a brain!") knowing full well that often times things are not what they appear to be, in fact, more often than not they aren't. You have only to remember your own childhood to remember this.

Alls I can say is, some of you must be hearing and following strange voices.

Lis said...

Here is a quote from his mother:

Before the arrest, Tom's mother, Joan, told of the strain the ordeal was taking on her son.
"He's not doing well at all, actually - I don't think he's coping," she told a British newspaper.
"Tom is coming off far better on the TV right now than he is in reality."
Mrs Meagher said the family had followed the case on the internet at their home in Dublin waiting for news.

I think the only thing worse than losing a loved one to violence would be to lose a loved one to violence and then be accused of it. It's important that we impartially stick to the statement, give the person the benefit of assuming they are speaking the truth until proven otherwise, and not use it as a starting point for imagination.

Anonymous said...

I live in melbourne and this case has affected me badly. I also thought at first the husband may have had something to do with it. I now feel very guilty for that. He lost his beautiful wife. Grief may not always come out the way people expect.

Anonymous said...

Anon above me. I also live in Melbourne. Your comment could of been mine. The guilt i have felt for thinking it was the husband. I had an appointment in Brunswick not long after. I lit candles for her. This site is interesting but can also be dangerous. I lost my partner last year. The steps of grieving were horrible, and still continue. I send my strength and support to Thomas and Jill's family and friends.

Anonymous said...

I like how Peter is so defensive. In your analysis or whatever you call it, you confidently pointed to Tom as guilty. Obsessively pointing out and correcting what he said, suggesting what he must have said, use of past tense, pronouns etc. I hope you would man up and gather the decency to apologise