Friday, October 5, 2012

Cop Admits Killing Wife To Ex Girlfriend


Cop 'confessed' to wife slay in chilling 2 a.m. phone call

The ex-girlfriend of a former housing cop on trial for the murder of his wife told jurors yesterday that he confessed to the gruesome crime to her, calling in the middle of the night to say that he’d “snapped.”
“There is no easy way to say what I’m about to tell you,” ex-cop Eddy Coello allegedly told Monica Rodriguez in the 2 a.m. phone call, according to Rodriguez.
“You did it?” she replied.
Yes, I did,” Coello replied, according to her testimony in Bronx Supreme Court.
Rodriguez said Coello told her he “just snapped.
The word "just" is used in comparisons as a form of reduction.  "The car is only $15,000" might suggest the speaker was comparing its price with something much higher.  Here she quoted him as saying he "just snapped" which may suggest that he is comparing what he did to something greater, such as a sustained anger.  Note this quote with his history. 
She said the March 17, 2011, call came after Tina Adovasio’s body had been found by two teenagers riding ATVs in the woods near the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester, days after she had been reported missing.
BOMBSHELL: Monica Rodriguez leaves court yesterday after testifying that her ex-beau Eddy Coello phoned her to confess he had murdered his wife.
Robert Kalfus
BOMBSHELL: Monica Rodriguez leaves court yesterday after testifying that her ex-beau Eddy Coello phoned her to confess he had murdered his wife.
DOOMED: A pal said yesterday she once saw bruises on slay victim Tina Adovasio inflicted by Eddy Coello.
DOOMED: A pal said yesterday she once saw bruises on slay victim Tina Adovasio inflicted by Eddy Coello.
Rodriguez said Coello also told her he had a good lawyer and would probably get only five to 20 years in prison for the crime and would come out of jail “a better person.”
Coello fathered a daughter with Rodriguez 19 years ago.
He made a similar confession to his boss, according to another witness. At the time, the former cop worked as a physician’s assistant for an orthopedic surgeon, Michael Cushner, who testified that Coello admitted he “blacked out” and killed Adovasio.
He said, ‘Doc, I’m very sorry that I had to put you through this, the office through this, but I did it,” Cushner said.
Cushner, 44, said Coello seemed despondent over Adovasio’s death.
But he said he wouldn’t commit suicide because he was very religious,” Cushner said.
Earlier, a friend of Adovasio testified about bruises she saw on the victim after a workout session.
Adovasio, a nurse, had already told the friend about her violent husband, but Margo Paladines said she saw the results of the abuse for herself during a post-exercise sauna.
It was very visible,” Paladines said. “She said he was very aggressive. He was mentally and physically abusive.”
Paladines also said Adovasio told her she was reluctant to reach out for help.
She said she was afraid to call police because he threatened to kill her if she did,” Paladines said.
Prosecutors say Coello, 41, flew into a rage after Adovasio told him in text messages that she wanted a divorce because she suspected him of cheating.
Coello told police that his wife had stormed out of their home after a fight.
His alibi quickly unraveled when security video showed him leaving their apartment building alone and carrying a duffel bag.
Coello’s volatile marriage to Adovasio was marred by several incidents of domestic strife.
In February 2005, Coello pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment after a domestic incident and received a conditional discharge.
In February 2007, he was arrested for an attack on Adovasio that landed her in a hospital. That case was sealed.
In November 2010, police were called to their home after a fight, but no arrests were made.
Coello’s abusive behavior with another girlfriend got him kicked out of the NYPD in 2000.
Adovasio was the mother of Coello’s 6-year-old daughter and had three children from a previous marriage

37 comments:

Lucy said...

He won't commit suicide because he is very religious, but he didn't see a problem with abusing and murdering his wife?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they are hired based on their narcissistic characteristics. Being hospitialized would have been engouh for me. If he said he would kill her, then he would have. He did.

I saw one in my neighborhood late yesterday afternoon. Why this type comes in my neighborhood is beyond me. There are police in my neighborhood and he is not needed. I was out working and he drove by, went to the next street and turned around and came back by. Gives me the creeps every time I see one.

MissUnderstood said...

OT:

A FATHER and son bully a DISABLED 10 year old girl, suffering with cerebral palsy. Story and video available. Check out the FATHERS "denial" (he "would never" do that) and excuse!! His wife claims that Hope's family has called her son names. I guess they should just let their daughter be bullied. Very sad. Do we wonder why kids are cruel? Look at their "parents"!! No wonder the "father" refused to talk on camera. He gave his guilt away in one sentence. Would someone innocent of bullying a disabled 10 year old girl hide from the camera? Would they at least deny having bullied her? Not deny bullying her in the future, but deny having bullied her in the past!:

MyFoxBoston.com) -A family of a 10-year-old Ohio girl who has cerebral palsy turned over video to prosecutors that they say shows a neighbor and his son making fun of their daughter by mimicking her walk, Fox8.com reported.

Bailey, for his part, declined to talk on camera, but told The New York Daily News that he was injured on the job and was suffering from bruised ribs and twisted back when the video was shot.

"I would never do that," he told the paper. "I wasn't out to make this kid look bad."

His wife told Fox8.com that this is all part of an ongoing dispute and that Hope's family has called her son names.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19742796/2012/10/05/video-father-and-son-videotaped-allegedly-bullying-disabled-girl

Hobnob said...

"I would never do that," he told the paper. "I wasn't out to make this kid look bad."
Future conditional, he tells us what he won't do in the future (especially since he was caught) not that he didn't do it in the past.

If he wasn't out to mae this kid look bad, what was he out to make her look?

"I wasn't out to make this kid look bad."

This contradicts his statement that he would (didn't) do that.
If he didn't do anything how could he thus be making the kid look bad?

The denial of not making the kid look bad only applies if he was doing something concerning the kid's appearance or behavior.
The 2 statements are mutually exclusive.
Either he did something but it wasn't to make the kid look bad or he didn't do something and it made the kid look bad.

Deception indicated.

As a matter of interest if he was so injured at work there should by law be a record of it in the accident book along with visits to the dr/physio.

Hobnob said...

wouldn't (didn't) do that not would

Forever Curious said...

Just snapped- the minimization in my mind isn't so much comparing what he did with something worse as saying this is not who he is and the change happened suddenly so he had no opportunity to avoid what he did. And if you look at his history, that's total b.s.

equinox said...

I wish I knew the question he was asked that he "would never do". Because we can all see from the video that he was doing something nasty. Are we supposed to believe his kid was mocking him by walking the same way?

Here Hobnob, have the quote from the mother and pull it apart!
"He did get out of the car, you've seen the video I am sure, my kid was walking like, but no offense to Hope so why they are taking it that way, I have no idea,"

News reports also say that both families have filed complaints with the prosecutor. What possible charges against the 10 year old's family could there be?

Anonymous said...

Why no photo of the wife?

Of course he killed her. Violently. Snapped or not is beside the point. It was only a matter of time before he would kill her. Right. He snapped everytime he beat her. The beatings always get worse, never better. But the poor thing had no help. No one came to her rescue yet many knew he viciously beat her.

I wish we still had old sparkey and he had to take his turn sitting in it, and every other man who beats their wife.

Pisces Dreamer said...

Totally OT, but I was wondering if anyone would like to help me with analysis of this written statement, given by a man who plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter in the murder of a 17-year old girl in my area. The victim's name is Mackenzie Cowell, and Chris Wilson is the man serving time for her death. As I said, he plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter/kidnapping and claimed his plea was due to the fact he couldn't get an impartial jury and a change of venue seemed unlikely.

Now, a victim's advocate, who got involved to support justice for Mackenzie, is in contact with Chris Wilson and suggesting he is innocent - or, at least, justice has not been served because the people "actually" responsible for Mackenzie's death are not behind bars.

Mackenzie went missing on February 9th, 2010, after leaving the beauty school she attended at around 3:23pm. The last activity on her cell phone was a text message to her boyfriend at around 3:30pm. It said, "Hey." Her car was found abandoned later that night up Pitcher Canyon, a few miles from the beauty school, where video showed her leaving alone in her car.

Mackenzie's body was found near the water below a residence at Crescent Bar resort, nearly 30 miles from the beauty school. She was fully clothed and had not been sexually assaulted. Reports said an attempt at dismembering her arm had been made, but unsuccessful.

Mackenzie's cell phone has never been recovered.

Below, I'm posting a quote from Chris Wilson, as written by him to advocate Jennifer Irish, explaining his activities on February 9, 2010. This quote was posted on the Justice for Mackenzie Cowell Facebook page, at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=388397507900898&set=a.160314774042507.40510.160290107378307&type=1

"Hello Jennifer-
Really quickly I'll try to take you through the day of Feb. 9th.
I went to school that morning as usual and left around 3pm, as I did every other day (That's the normal time for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who left around the same time that day as well.). I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week). After that, I returned home and met with (Deleted). He was paying me $10 to keep up the maintenance on his dreadlocks. He arrived around 6pm, as did Tessa. She took photos of the dreadlock process to add to my school portfolio, a requirement for graduation. By the way, (Deleted) has been ruled out as a suspect through DNA and alibis. He would have been a key witness for us as he was an unbiased party who was in my apartment that day, but was too intimidated by police to cooperate with anyone. Anyway, I finished up his hair a little after 7pm. After he left, Tessa and I headed over to my mothers salon and attended my step-fathers birthday party. Multiple witnesses can verify this. We left around 7:30 and she dropped me off at my place before she headed home. I took cupcakes from the party to another friend who lived in my building around 7:35-7:40. We can verify he was there because he was on house arrest due to a DUI infraction. This also proves that there wouldn't have been enough time for me to drive Mackenzie's car to pitcher canyon. So, after dropping the cupcakes off, I went downstairs to my apartment and remained there for the evening. Despite what the WW reported, I did attend class the next day. School records will prove this as well. It should also be noted that the FBI cellphone triangulation reports show I wasn't anywhere near pitcher canyon or crescent bar ever." - Chris Wilson

Thanks in advance for any help any of you might be able to give me. I have my own thoughts on analysis, but I'm such a newbie, I'm not confident in my skills.

Lis said...

I have a question about the word "just". I use it a lot, myself, but when I use it, I am thinking "nothing but". For instance, if I said "that was just awful" I would mean "that was awful and nothing but awful!". So, it seems like rather than using it as a form of reduction, I am using it as a form of emphasis?

Hobnob said...

Hi Pisces
I went to school that morning as usual and left around 3pm, as I did every other day (That's the normal time for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who left around the same time that day as well.). I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week).


What stands out immediately is he uses correct pronouns everywhere except the section i have bolded where they are dropped.
If he can't take ownership neither can we,

Seamus O Riley said...

"That was just awful"....comparing it upwards! It was, perhaps, worse than expected. It is an indication of comparison. I use it a lot too.

Sometimes it is "just" or "only" something, compared as "less" (reducing) but it can be compared to something less, making the emphasis, as in your example. It can be "reduced" to a position of "only", being greater or less.

Good question. Peter

Lis said...

Was that the case in eastern Washington?

Lis said...

Thanks, Peter. How would a person know which way the subject was using it? Would you just flag it (there I go again, lol! This time I am using it in the reducing manner, I guess!) for possible one way or the other?

Pisces Dreamer said...

Yes, Lis. Wenatchee, WA.

MissUnderstood said...

Hobnob, I understand what you're saying about the pronouns, but I'm a little confused, in that statement. He's made a, sort of, list. Like if someone went shopping, they might say, "I got milk, bread, cheese, and eggs.". I don't think one would normally say/write, "I got milk, I got bread, I got cheese, and I got eggs.". Would they?

Hobnob said...

Hi missunderstood.

If you look, he says i walked home, taking ownership.
I would expect to see him then say I changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon.

I would expect him to take ownership of his actions once he got home.

He tells us he walked home, he doesn't tell us he went into his home so we can't either.

This is where the dropped pronoun is otherwise it would look as if he changed his clothes, checked his email etc whilst he walked home.

Does this make sense?

Pisces Dreamer said...

Thanks, Hobnob! Do you make anything of his statement that he went to school that morning, "as usual"?

He was a classmate of Mackenzie's at the beauty school.

Lis said...

Pisces, I am a noob and can only flag places I would want more information, but here is my go at it:
"Hello Jennifer-
Really quickly I'll try to take you through the day of Feb. 9th.
---
Why "really quickly"? rushed for time?

He'll "try" to take her through his day, meaning he may not be able to

---
I went to school that morning as usual and left around 3pm, as I did every other day (That's the normal time for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who left around the same time that day as well.).
---
(Question- is saying "as usual" similar to using the phrase "normal day"?)

"around 3pm" what would 'around' mean to him? ("3" is noted)

If he did this "every other day" does it mean he did it this day?

"normal time" - persuading, is this the time classes ended?

"In fact" - does this mean other parts of the statement are not fact?

If "other people" left at around the same time, does that mean he did? does that prove it was the correct time to leave?

Left would be flagged as sensitive but it appears he did then arrive at home:

----

I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week).
----
Lack of pronouns might be significant ?

He "probably" made something to eat, he is not committed to having prepared food or eaten

He "headed over" but did he arrive at his mother's salon? The time he left for his mother's salon is missing.

----

After that, I returned home and met with (Deleted).
----

(Question: does 'after that' indicate missing information, possibly?) He "headed over" to his mother's salon, "after that" he returned home. I would flag this as the period of time to further investigate.
----

He was paying me $10 to keep up the maintenance on his dreadlocks.

He arrived around 6pm, as did Tessa. She took photos of the dreadlock process to add to my school portfolio, a requirement for graduation.

----
He met with x before he arrived/ out of order

He uses "pm" with the time twice; here and at 7pm

Extra details begin here.
He does not specifically say that he did this service that day at that time, merely that x 'was paying' him to keep up the maintenance on his dreadlocks.

Knowing a little bit about this case, Tessa was also a suspect, wasn't she?

Did she take the photos of the dreadlock process that day, at that time? If he was only doing maintenance, would there be much to photograph? (I have no idea how dreadlocks are maintained)

(cont'd)...

Lis said...

(cont'd)...
By the way, (Deleted) has been ruled out as a suspect through DNA and alibis. He would have been a key witness for us as he was an unbiased party who was in my apartment that day, but was too intimidated by police to cooperate with anyone.
----
Can someone actually be ruled out by DNA? wouldn't it be more correct to say he was not implicated by DNA?

"alibis" plural

is the pronoun 'he' missing from "but was too intimidated"? He was too intimidated to cooperate "with anyone"?

he was "in his apartment that day" if he arrived around 6, it would seem more like evening?
-----
Anyway, I finished up his hair a little after 7pm. After he left, Tessa and I headed over to my mothers salon and attended my step-fathers birthday party.
---
"Tessa and I" indicates closeness as opposed to 'with Tessa'

----
Multiple witnesses can verify this. We left around 7:30 and she dropped me off at my place before she headed home. I took cupcakes from the party to another friend who lived in my building around 7:35-7:40. We can verify he was there because he was on house arrest due to a DUI infraction. This also proves that there wouldn't have been enough time for me to drive Mackenzie's car to pitcher canyon. So, after dropping the cupcakes off, I went downstairs to my apartment and remained there for the evening. Despite what the WW reported, I did attend class the next day. School records will prove this as well. It should also be noted that the FBI cellphone triangulation reports show I wasn't anywhere near pitcher canyon or crescent bar ever." - Chris Wilson

----
The cellphone records would only prove that his cellphone did not travel to those places, correct?

Tessa "headed home" but did she get there?

He "wasn't anywhere near pitcher canyon or crescent bar ever." Ever?

The detail for each period of time increases until the most is given for the last period. We have:
that morning
around 3
around 6pm
a little after 7pm
around 7:30
around 7:35-7:40

I notice he has not given a reliable denial but possibly he has given one in person and it was not the subject of this note so he left it out.

Other than the few missing pronouns in the one sentence, which could be a continuation of the first pronoun, his pronouns appear to be in order and he takes ownership of things appropriately. Proper introductions are not made but that seems normal since the recipient is undoubtedly familiar with the people.

I'm sorry that is not much help, I hope others will chime in because it is an intriguing statement. I am on the fence other than wanting further information about the things I flagged.

Hobnob said...

I went to school that morning as usual and left around 3pm, as I did every other day (That's the normal time for full-time students to leave. Infact,

When someone feels the need to same something was as usual or as nomal, the day was anything but.

3 is the liars number (mark McClish) i wouldn't red flag it as deceptive, i would however make a note.

as I did every other day
This is a strange statement to me.
Every other day to me means alternate days, If he meant every day i would expect hims to say as i did EVERY day.

The statement may be innocent, i however would ask him questions about this specific day as well as random other days.

I would be asking about his leaving time whether it varied.

I note he introduces triangulation not only for the day but the following week as well indicating sensitivity.
I would ask for a day by statement of his actions for the following week, each day being done separately.

Randie said...

I will put my red flags in capital letters. Randie

"Hello Jennifer-
Really quickly I'll TRY to TAKE (DOESN'T SAY" TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED) you through the day (DOESN'T SAY DAY AND THE NIGHT) of Feb. 9th.
I went to school THAT morning AS USUAL and LEFT around 3pm, (USES THE #3) AS I DID EVERY OTHER day (THAT's the NORMAL time for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who LEFT around the same time that day as well.). I walked home, changed my clothes (NO PRONOUN), checked my email(NO PRONOUN), probably made something to eat(NO PRONOUN) and then (NO PRONOUN)headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts THAT day and following week). After THAT, I returned home and met WITH (Deleted). He was paying me $10 to keep up the maintenance on his dreadlocks (TOO MUCH INFORMAITON---HE IS TELLING US WHY SOMETHING HAPPENED NOT WHAT HAPPENED). He arrived around 6pm, as did Tessa. She took photos of the dreadlock process to add TO ADD TO MY SCHOOL PORTFOLIO, A REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION (TOOOOO MUCH INFORMATION- AGIAN EXPLAINING WHY NOT WHAT) . By the way, (Deleted) has been ruled out as a suspect through DNA and alibis. He would have been a key witness for us as he was an unbiased party who was in my apartment THAT day, but was too intimidated by police to cooperate with anyone. ANYWAY (IT IS LIKE SAYING HOWEVER, IT ERASES WHAT WAS JUST SAID), I finished up his hair a little after 7pm. After he LEFT, Tessa and I HEADED OVER (ISN'T THE SAYME AS PAST TENSE WENT) to my mothers salon and attended my step-fathers birthday party(DROPPED PRONOUN). Multiple witnesses can verify THIS. We LEFT around 7:30 and she dropped me off at my place before she HEADED (THIS WORD ISN'T THE SAME AS WENT) home. I took cupcakes from the party to another friend who LIVED (SHOULDN'T THIS SAY LIVES) in my building around 7:35-7:40. WE (HE DOESN'T SAY "i") can verify he was there BECAUSE (HE IS TELLING US WHY AGAIN NOT WHAT HAPPENED) he was on house arrest due to a DUI infraction. THIS also proves THAT there WOULDN'T (SPEAKING IN THE NEGATIVE) have been enough time for me to drive Mackenzie's car to pitcher canyon. SO (TELLING US WHY NOT WHAT HAPPENED), after dropping the cupcakes off, I went downstairs to my apartment and remained there for the evening. Despite what the WW reported, I did attend class the next day. School records will prove THIS as well. It should also be noted THAT the FBI cellphone triangulation reports show I WASN'T (SPEAKING IN THE NEGATIVE) anywhere near pitcher canyon or crescent bar EVER (EXTRA WORD, THIS WORD IS USED TO TRY TO CONVINCE)." - Chris Wilson

SOMETHING ELSE THAT CONCERNS ME IS THE TELLING OF TIME AND HOW EACH IS WRITTEN OUT. THEY AREN'T CONSISTANT. (EXAPLE "A LITTLE AFTER 7PM" AND THEN HE IS MORE SPECIFIC WITH 7:30-7:40....)

ALSO I BELIEVE THERE ARE FRAMED WORDS WITH DRYVING THE CAR TO THE CANYON

Randie said...

I enjoyed your analysis. I found some of the ones you did too.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pisces,
I'm in the area too. I was just in Wenatchee earlier today.
I'm in Q-town


Kathead








MissUnderstood said...

Thanks Hobnob. I see what you're saying.

Anonymous said...

Additional stuff:
He is trying to give a quick story of what he did that day. He mentions 3pm, then 6pm, then 7pm, but after that he stopped using the pm. Did something happen after 7pm?

Also, we says, "He would have been a key witness for us as he was an unbiased party who was in my apartment that day". Who is "us" were two people charged with murder or only him? Sometimes guilty people include others in their story to mnimize guilt.

He says "We can verify he was there..." Why we? He is including himself with others. Who is "we".

At one point he is giving his tale of what he did. He goes on to say:
"I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week). After that, I returned home and met with (Deleted).
He probably made something to eat? Did he or didn't he. He has a good recollection of times, but he is not sure on such an unforgettable day of whether he ate or not?

He also skips over time. He states, "after that, I returned home...". He skipped time from his mother's salon to returning home and meeting someone at 6pm. He didn't state what time he left and if we walked home or drove, but he found it necessary to include his school portfolio requirement information.

He says that FBI cellphone triangulation reports (which is sensitive to him as he stated it twice) show he wasn't anywhere near the canyon, but not that he wasn't there. This just shows that the cellphone was not there. He could have said instead: "I didn't go to Pitcher Canyon and the fbi cellphone triangulation reports also show this." Just like he says, "I did attend class the next day" - not "FBI cell phone triangulation reports show that I was at class the next day". See how he couldn't own up to not being at Pitcher Canyon...

Anonymous said...

OT- I was just rereading an old statement by Trista Reynolds on which someone performed some statement analysis. http://justiceforayla.org/statement-analysis-missing-toddlers-mother-pleads-for-information/

My question is, I have seen lots of real life instances where addicts talk is garbled not when their under the influence necessarily but just as if their brains were fried from too much substance abuse or they perhaps had some mental challenge in the first place. My question is would you characterize their broken up, inane sentences as the internal directory and ignore some or all of it for statement analysis purposes? Is it difficult/impossible to perform adequate statement analysis in such circumstances?

I am not at all persuaded by this particular statement analysis in the above link. What I see is someone whose brain is not fully capable of attending and articulating. I am wondering if those of you more familiar with statement analysis have a diff. perspective?

Pisces Dreamer said...

Hi there, local friend. :) *waves at Kathead*

Anonymous said...

Mackenzie went missing February 9th, 2010. Her red Pontiac Grand Prix was found several hours later 40 miles from her home in Pitcher Canyon.
Her body was found February 13th, 4 days later, in Crescent Bar. It is a 45 minute, 29.5 mile drive from Pitcher Canyon Road to Crescent Bar. (according to Google maps, not using the exact location where her body was found because I don't know it)

He probably stashed the body, then moved it later, but left the cell phone where he should have been so it didn't bust him when the FBI traced/triangulated where he had been during those days.

I remember the large billboard coming across Sellar Bridge with her face on it and a few more in Wenatchee.

Kathead

Pisces Dreamer said...

Thank you, everyone, for your analysis of Chris Wilson's statement!

I think, between everyone who posted, all the things I found were pointed out, and some that I'd missed!

I was thinking it was odd he said he headed to his mother's salon, but did not give the time, nor did he say who saw him there, or what he did there -- though he went through all that for every other place he said he went in documenting his time.

I feel this time window, after he left the school and before his 6pm meeting, was very sensitive. Mackenzie's car was found roughly 4 miles from his apartment - about a one hour walk.

I also know the mother's salon was processed by LE, but I'd have to go look up the report to see what - if anything - was found there. I want to say I remember something about dark smears going down the stairwell that were thought initially to be blood, but I can't remember what the findings were, or if they were released.

Blood said to be Mackenzie's was also reportedly found in a stain on the floor under the carpet of Chris Wilson's apartment.

I'd roughly estimate it's less than a mile between the apartment and the salon. He doesn't say how he got there... walked, got a ride, drove (Mackenzie's car?)... No idea.

Thanks again, everyone who gave their observations. Y'all rock! xoxo

Randie said...

I would like to take another look at this. Peter has taught us well.... Give me some more time. Plus others will add more.

Anonymous said...

Oops!I fixed the sentence I screwed up.
Her red Pontiac Grand Prix was found several hours later, in Pitcher Canyon, 40 miles from her home.

Hobnob said...

Hi Anon.

We never ignore anything in statement analysis.
Everything they say comes a microsecond after thinking it.
Even if their brains are fried they will have thought what to say first.
Everything they say regardless of how garbled it may appear is relevant and nuggets of truth can show up in what appears to be nonsense.

It would be harder to learn their internal dictionary due to the effect of drugs and or alcohol, we would have to see what passes for normal for them, how they speak when discussing non-sensitive topics and then looking for changes when they talk about a sensitive subject.
it would require patience and skill in keeping the subject focussed on what is bing asked rather than wandering off onto other topics ( i would note when they wandered off topic and what they talked about since there is some link, some crossroads in the discussion where they took a turn instead of going straight on)

Randie said...

These parts of the paragraph I am very concerned about:

"Hello Jennifer-
Really quickly I'll try to take you through the day of Feb. 9th.
I went to school that morning AS USUAL and left around 3pm, AS I DID EVERY OTHER DAY (THAT'S THE NORMAL TIME for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who LEFT AROUND THE SAME TIME that day as well.). I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week). After that, I returned home and met with (Deleted).

HE STATES 4 TIMES AND IN 4 DIFFERENT WAYS "THE TIME HE LEFT SCHOOL" THIS IS VERY SENSATIVE TO HIM!
**************************************

LOOK AT THIS PART OF THE PARAGRPH CLOSELY. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WENT ON BETWEEN 3:00PM AND 6:00PM....HE DOES NOT TELL US. HE DROPS HIS PRONOUNS AND WONT OWN THE WORDS, NEITHER CAN WE. THERE IS A JUMP IN TIME. I BELIEVE HE DID SOMETHING TO THIS GIRL. IT HAPPENED BEFORE 6:00PM.

"Hello Jennifer-
Really quickly I'll try to take you through the day of Feb. 9th.
I went to school that morning as usual and left around 3pm, as I did every other day (That's the normal time for full-time students to leave. Infact, there were a lot of other people who left around the same time that day as well.). I walked home, changed my clothes, checked my email, probably made something to eat and then headed over to my mothers salon (FBI cellphone-triangulation reports verified my entire where-abouts that day and following week). After that, I returned home and met with (Deleted). He was paying me $10 to keep up the maintenance on his dreadlocks. He arrived around 6pm, as did Tessa. She took photos of the dreadlock process to add to my school portfolio, a requirement for graduation.

WHEN DID THIS ALL TAKE PLACE? IS THERE MORE INFO? MY ANALYSIS TELLS ME HE KILLED THIS GIRL. ALSO HE SAYS: "THAT'S THE NORMAL TIME....." HE SHOULDN'T SEPERATE HIMSELF FROM THIS TIME PERIOD. HE SHOULD USE THE WORD "THIS"....HE HAS NO REASON TO SEPERATE HIMSELF FROM THIS TIME PERIOD....UNLESS HE HAS REASON TO!



Randie said...

I just saw his words: "After that, I returned home........"

Why is he using the word "that" while telling us he was at his mother's salon??? He gives us no reason for "seperating" himself from being at his mother's salon.

He should have used the word "this". He is using the word "that" because he was trying to seperate himself from what had happened and why he ended up at the salon....he killed this girl.

Anonymous said...

hmmm... i have been reading all of your statement analysis and then i looked at my own style of writing and talking. i often use "after that" in fact i never say "after this"... does this make me a liar? and i would list the things i did at home pretty much the same way wilson did, so i dont see that as a possible way distancing oneself from the listed events or deeds. some of the analysis seems a bit illogical to me...

Anonymous said...

I believe CW is innocent. This case needs to be reopened and investigated by a competent agency of L OUTSIDE of that county that is plagued with corruption in the sheriff's office and the Columbia River Drug Task Force!