Sunday, March 3, 2013

Killers On National Television

                              Why are people surprised when a killer seeks out publicity?

Perhaps it is because the expectation is that the killer would not want to go near the scene of the crime, even figuratively, on television.

It isn't so.

Remember the old, "the killer returns to the scene of the crime" from Sherlock Holmes?  We read the same from John Douglas and others where law enforcement set up cameras at vigils to catch the killer, or put a hidden camera at the gravesite of the victim.

The killer often shows a need to control, which extends not only to the god-like desire to control the life and death over the victim, but to even control media.

The sociopath's world centers around the sociopath.  This person is the most important person in the world, to himself or herself.  Selfishness abounds with abusers, who often use the threat of violence to control the victim, and can later claim, "I never hit her with a closed fist" (Mark Redwine), as if this was something worthy of praise.

                                                   The sociopath loves attention and control.

The sociopath that loves the spotlight, often does so to her own demise.

Billie Jean loved the spotlight and was hard pressed to give it up

This is sometimes evident when the killer wants to be the center of attention.  We saw this with Billie Jean Dunn.  Shawn Adkins was happy enough to refuse the polygraph, and not speak much on television, but not so the leader, Dunn, who not only loved the spotlight, but felt the need to control information.  It was this need to control, a signal of childhood sexual abuse, that caused her to answer questions well beyond the boundary of the expected answers, giving us valuable information.  On her first appearance on The Nancy Grace Show, she was asked how far Hailey, 13, had to go.  "Four or five blocks" was a good answer, but in the need to control information, she went further in her answer, and referenced Hailey in the past tense, indicating that Hailey was dead.  When she was asked "what" happened, she answered, instead with "when" it happened:  while she was at work.  This need to control information indicated her need for an alibi, as her priority.

It was hard for her to give up the attention, even after being humiliated on national television, first by Hailey's grandmother, and then by Nancy Grace.  Later, the betrayal was complete when Marc Klaas, the empty-headed advisor that coached Billie to look genuinely concerned by telling her to not forget Hailey when she was in front of the camera, who called on "shame" on her for lying about what Klaas thought was the number one suspect, Shawn Adkins, failing to see that Billie Dunn, herself, was the brains of the operation, no matter how handicapped.

Scott Peterson was in love with Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson's videos now are universally shown as "deceptive" by body language experts who did not all, universally, feel that way before he was caught.  Statement Analysis showed deception by using the same principles used in all cases across the board.

Peterson loved the camera and loved the thrill of manipulation.  He felt that his skill at lying along with his perceived good looks would serve him well.  One might wonder how his looks are serving him today in prison.  He is on death row, with 68 other killers (as of December 2012) and has several hours a day outside the safety of his cell.  The other killers, also sentenced to death, have little incentive to behave like gentlemen.  I don't imagine Scott Peterson has had success running for Death Row Male of the Year.

His video is useful in teaching Statement Analysis while noting his body language, even without a strong reference point.

We will do some analysis of his statements in future articles, as it will be useful in those learning from new cases, regarding the consistency of application of principle.  You will learn why this is a "scientific" process; that is, one that is repeated with expected results.

Justin DiPietro was "emotionally incapable" of speaking to the "kidnapper" of Baby Ayla, in the critical early days, but eventually was publicly pushed into giving an interview, where he was indicated for deception.  He has had the sense to stay away from the spotlight, as each and every word he has spoken has gone under the microscope of public scrutiny.  He hid behind women, which, ironically, is the same thing that Mark Redwine is doing.

Raised with 7 sisters, it was the height of unmanliness for a male to strike a female.  Although this dates me in speaking of honoring the weaker sex, those who hold to Scripture know that truth transcends culture, language, time and reality TV.  Even the prohibition of military uniforms was given, not for culture, but for the reality of who was to lay down his life for whom.  My father laid down the law in spite of the Doctor Spock generation; before America's prisons were so full that prison building was a "growth industry." The sting on a 3 year old's behind reminded him to never raise a hand to his sisters.  Lesson learned early, which needed no reminders later.

"Women and children first", from the original, non-fiction accounts of the Titanic, gave birth to societies where young boys were taught that sacrifice was the key to masculinity; not exploitation of weakness.  Some cultures believe the Darwinian survival of the fittest and in a sinking boat, throw women and children overboard in order to save their own lives.  Metaphorically, we will see how men do this today.

Today, if a little boy has a mother sufficiently dysfunctional and desirous of attention, to put panties on her little boy, there is sure to be a lawsuit and publicity, demanding the local school spend a quarter of a million dollars in building the little boy his own bathroom.   Mom makes her point, gets her attention, fulfilling her real goal,  gender be damned, and certainly the boy's mental health be damned, there are still those who believe in woman and children first, even if they are cultural dinosaurs on the verge of extinction in America.

DiPietro hides behind women and has put two women at risk of losing their children once he is arrested.  Both Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are in risk of losing custody of their children as the lies become unwound and revealed. Those who participated in the death of a child would likely not only lose custody, but could face a future where neither woman would be permitted, by the State, to keep any future children born.  This is called an "Aggravating Factor" in the process which could lead the State to make this allegation, which, if upheld by a judge, would relieve the State of reunification services to both women, allowing for the children to be adopted out.

If Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are not involved beyond the lies they may lose custody of their children, but if they are in deeper, guilt wise, they will lose custody, along with their freedom, and upon conviction, lose all rights to any future children.

If Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts are not involved in the disappearance of Baby Ayla  beyond the lies told for Ayla's father, Justin DiPietro has literally sacrificed the lives of their children, just to cover his own guilty behavior.  This is something that both women have had plenty of time to ponder, with Justin reminding them, regularly, that the police "have nothing" on him, with the passage of time only emboldening the lies.

This isn't, however, how life works.  In due time, their feet will slide.

Justin DiPietro's statement of being "emotionally incapable" showed an unmanly side of him, but it is in the ability to get his sister and his girlfriend to lie for him, putting their freedoms at risk, and the stability of their children, that highlights how "women and children" are not first, but are sacrificed for him, just as Ayla was sacrificed to provide money for him.

Mark Redwine's assaults against the women in his life are signals of his lack of masculinity, just as Justin DiPietro's refusal to speak out was as well.  Both men refuse to accept responsibility and face natural consequences, like men should, while both call upon women to defend them.  Justin has his mother, sister and girlfriend lying for him, while his friend's mother (who sold him the death policy against Ayla) is his public spokesman.

Is he 'emotionally capable' yet?

Mark Redwine is a control abuser, like so many others who cowardly prey upon women.  He has the need to control even down to simple conversation, which then shows his method of deception:


When he is asked a question, he does not answer the question if he is uncomfortable (meaning that the question is sensitive to him) but will answer a question not asked.  This is a skill learned in childhood which is infuriating to anyone seeking knowledge or truth.  This is similar to the Statement Analysis principle:  If a question is not answered, the question, itself, should be considered "sensitive" to the subject.

Redwine actually attempted to take a nationally televised program about his missing 13 year old son and turn it into a forum on children respecting their parents.  This is what Dr. Phil was warned about, from the beginning:

Don't let it turn into a dispute between parents, as this would play right into Mark Redwine's strategy.   Like the trouble-making kid in class who loves to get everyone around him in trouble, this was Redwine's plan.  It appears to me that Mark Redwine was expecting Dr. Phil to chide the parents into getting along "for the sake of Dylan" but Dr. Phil made it clear from the beginning that he would not be played by Mark Redwine, instead, Dr. Phil exposed Mark Redwine as one with guilty knowledge of what happened to Dylan, including saying to Redwine, "God forbid, if something happened and you lost your temper..."

Redwine rebuffed attempts to broker a deal as Dr. Phil added that he would "go get the young man" as part of the deal.

An imperfect interview by Dr. Phil (no such thing as a perfect one), Three Cheers for Dr. Phil in handling Mark Redwine.  The one major point I would have done differently?  I would have pushed him into the polygraph by poking his ego.

Mark Redwine may not know precisely where Dylan is right now, especially if his small body has been taken by moving water but he can tell police where he dumped him.  This is the type of question that some guilty parties can pass.  I believe that Billie Jean Dunn gave specific instructions to Shawn Adkins about Hailey's body:  DO NOT tell me where you dumped her, even though she likely knows the general area. Dunn is smart enough to know that she would run the risk of slipping out the information, as well as knowing that if she passed this question on the polygraph, she could use it as a bragging point.

Don't bet on Mark Redwine doing this without some form of self-serving motive.  This is the kind of admission that comes after arrest and after the thought the spending the rest of his life in prison as a child killer.


Baxtie said...

Hi Peter,

I'm a fairly new reader and I love your blog.

Not to nitpick, but in the interest of accuracy and attention to detail, if you're referring to Polly Klaas's father above, his name is spelled Marc Klaas (not Mark Klass).

If it's someone else you're referring to, then I apologize for intruding.

Hobnob said...

Don't forget the gruesome twosome, the mccanns, who's first appearance on tv to pla for help finding their 'missing' daughter was read from a script. Who controlled all interviews to the extent of setting out questions they would answer and releasing info only to those reporters and papers who supported them. Who went to the extreme of suing the ex lead detective because he said Maddie was dead and died in their apartment even though he allowed for accidental death, a conclusion which the prosecutors agreed with saying the parents could bot clear themselves. The managed to get his book banned and then lost 2 subsequent appeals, they then tried to sue him for over 1 million euros for libel yet weeks ago decided to capitulate and try to come to a deal with Goncalo Amaral that he would be satisfied with. he turned them down and will see them in court (somewhere they have done their best to avoid especially after losing thier appeals) Many of us suspect they wanted a gagging clause so no one could speak of the deal which they would use to paint themselves as innocent and nice to the "Fu***** To**** (what kate called him) rather than have it known they backed down. The won the case against Tony Bennet in regard to him breaking an undertaking not to discuss the case (the only man in the world not allowed to talk about it) although the Judge has said it would be better to for a full libel trial which Tony wants and they don't. Watching their interviews it is comical how evasive and controlling they are even to gerry having a tantrum and storming off the set. What is good though is kate wrote a bewk giving her account of what happened( which the twins will read and understand what happened and how nasty the public has been to doubt her version of events, I wonder what they will make of kate's description of "Madeleine's perfect little genitals being torn apart" - page 129 i think )which has pinned their story down, it is thus adn missable as evidence and reveals a whole bunch of discrepancies between what she said and what she said in the rogatoy interviews.

They are both classic narccisistic sociopaths and domestic violence is a given when you look at the picturesand read her timelines (a bath and a shower within an hour or so of david payne baby bather extraordinaire and suspected paedophile visiting?)

TxTchr said...

Redwine stared down Dr. Phil while they were alone in Dr. Phil's office. I've seen this look many times on my dad's face. He was only able to keep his rage under control when we were in public. If we were at home when he became angry, he was unable to stop spanking. When he lost control my mother had to come in and intervene. I saw the same rage on Redwine's face. My dad is not and was not an alcoholic. I can't imagine the fuel that alcohol adds to the burn of anger.

Anonymous said...

What was that statement about Madelines perfect little genitals? Ive never seen that before! That is obscene. Who in the hell creates a visual of their own daughter like that?
Regarding the woman suing for her kids own bathroom, the whole thing doesnt make sense. First of all, he may be considered a threat in a girl's bathroom but he is in danger by going to the men's bathroom growing up. Be that as it may, that child cannot have possibly identified as being female since nearly infancy, who indulges that to that degree? That is child abuse and that child needs to be taken away immediately. His life is ruined by simply being born to that twat of a mother. I believe they concocted this whole thing knowing it would be banned for the sake of a lawsuit.I hope these parents are punished for destroying this child like that.

Anonymous said...

One of the statements that strikes me as very telling is when Kate says she went to check on Madeleine and "found her gone" which is oxymoronic on face value. It is colloquial to say that in America, Im not sure about anywhere else. Still, it's impossible to find someone gone, which is not the same as to find someone 'missing.' Gone in this case strikes me as an admission that Madelein was found dead, and because gone in this context is probably dead, she is telling a sort of truth which would be more comfortable and easier to say than 'missing' which is most probably a lie.

Hobnob said...

Kate's writing in her book, a book she wrote for the twins to read.

What struck me was the description she used regarding her cold grey mottled body on a slab, a perfect descriptions of a corpse showing lividity (where the blood settles due to the effect of gravity which shows the position the body was in and a dead giveaway if the body is found in a different position that it has been moved.) her descriptions is what is seen by cornoners and morticians when a body is kept chilled, or the body has been frozen) Doctors will have visited the mortuary duing training it is not something they often come across in real life especially if they are a p/t locum in a smallpractice.

Hobnob said...

her exact words on page 129 were
"I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her perfect little genitals torn apart"

This is a huge red flag, entirely unexpected especially from a mom with a missing daughter. this contradicts what she and gerry have been telling the world that there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any serious harm ( what is thier definition of serious harm if not abduction by a paedophile and the reactions of cadavers dogs to the apt. clothes and the hire car)

‘The truly awful manifestation of what I was feeling was a macabre slideshow of vivid pictures in my brain that taunted me relentlessly.
‘I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.
‘The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me over and over again.

It is also telling that she has said Madeleine haunts her.
Live people don't haunt, only dead people do

Tormented Kate McCann told last night how she is visited in the night by the spirit of her missing daughter Madeleine.

The anguished GP says she is regularly woken up by visions of the four-year-old in her bedroom. Kate, 39, revealed the visions to her mum, Susan Healy, who was worried about her daughter’s lack of sleep

Susan had assumed Kate and husband Gerry were being kept awake by her two-year old twins, Sean and Amelie. She was stunned when Kate revealed it was missing Madeleine who was haunting her.

Susan, said: "She told me she has difficulty sleeping and wakes during the night. I asked: 'Do the twins come and wake you up?'

Kate said: "No, it's Madeleine. She comes in.'"

Trigger said...

This is a good post, Peter.

I like the way you addressed the similarities of the lure of an opportunity to manipulate the media by Mark, Billie, and Scott.

I remember a doctor who's family was murdered in the 70's who did the same thing with the media. Put a camera on him and he would talk and talk.

Anonymous said...

Kate mggan is aN EVIL TWISTED COW

Hobnob said...

I think the reason we see so many killers actively courting the media is threefold.

1) They are narcissistic sociopaths, they crave attention of any kind, doing interviews and press conferences focuses attention on them as opposed to the victim, ian huntley who murderred 2 little girls loved the media and did interviews which even the journalists thought was a bit odd in his answers. There is also the lure of big bux for their stories, something they will need once charged.

2) By talking to the media they get an insight into how the investigation is going, where possible searches are going to be, who LE have talked to and about what. As suspects LE isn't going to give them info, a journalist might well do.

3) They can actively influence the investigation, spin stories and control what is beng written about them even to the extent of silencing critics, suing any who disagree with their version of events and getting big payoffs, get gagging orders and influence the public view of them ensuring if all else fails they can claim they won't get a fait trial due to the publicity (even though the publicity is controlled by them)

When i see press conferences held in regard to a murder or alleged abduction, my first thought is who is present that the police think is involved?
I then look and listen closely to who is speaking and what they are saying, and just as importantly what they are not saying.
With the current case of the parents who murdered 6 of their children in a house fire, the father (who had been on a jeremy kyle (like a uk Jerry Springer) what was telling was the order in which he spoke indicating priority, how he thanked the police and called them gentlemen and his lack of appealing to find who killed his children. His wife said nothing, she pulled silly faces whilst pretending to cry. I knew then they were involved.

Anonymous said...

The "parents"who burned their children to death(6)of them,,now become "celebs"in their own twisted minds.miss marple I Satoute you!!!

Anonymous said...

Just looking for opinions here. What would happen if 2 psychopaths met. Would they fall in love? Could they recognize the psycho in the other? What would happen if they had a fight?

Wondering what would happen if muderous psychos met. like Jodi Arias and Scot Peterson. How long could they stand each other?

Layla said...

Just wanted to mention that the 1st 10 min of the 39 min interview with Mark where he is just kind of talking freestyle--I think it should be looked at more closely by you guys. In particular his present tense language as to what clues it could yield. I feel there is some odd language including such terms as "monitoring". Also, certain things such as Mark tearing up and saying how "people thought he was crazy he would drive that far for Dylan"--did he drive Dylan far??? When he disappeared? I just feel like there is stuff in that 1st 10 min of tape. Just a suggestion.

Peter Hyatt said...


this is a good point, and something that Kaaryn also pointed out.

thank you,


Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you, Baxtie. It is not nit-picking, it is accuracy and I have corrected it due to your help. Peter

Jen said...

Hi Jo & Susana,

I don't think the inclusion of the mother with the 'transgender' 1st grader was included to poke fun or rail on people with such an affliction. None of us would wish such pain on anyone and I'm sure dealing with the issue is probably a world of land mines. Rather I think Peter was referring to the mothers seeking to make it so public and insist that ALL bend to her unreasonable demands. The mother is not fighting for the child's cause or privacy in her actions (she made it more public than it could ever be in the world of elementary school), but instead fullfilling her own need for constant drama and conflict. I have known people like this, as I'm sure you have as well. They never seek to remedy or solve problems...only escalate them, and paint themselves as a victim, crusading against an invented adversary.

There are other remedies to the problem discussed including privately asking for the boy to be allowed to use the teacher facilities or home-schooling if the situation warrants, but a solution would not fulfill the mothers need for drama and attention. Turning her son into the poster boy for gender confusion will certainly cause more damage to his psyche than using the boys room, but it's not about's about her center of the world existence and using her son as a tool to accomplish that.

sella35 said...

@Baxtie-- after 3 years I read typos and mis-prints..sometimes Peters daughter does them, sometimes he does...and sometimes his wife Heather does them... We also have a fave english lady named HOBs who teaches us Hobanese language...typos do happen please do not be too anal about them....the site will teach us, if we want to learn. If we are nitpicking, we do not learn as much..i was a nitpicker, at first, now I dismiss it and read what it says!!:)

ME said...

You used to many nouns while employing a proactive verb.

~ABC said...

One word that Mark Redwine uses often strikes me as odd. Indicated, Dylan indicated this or indicated that. Every time I hear him say it I imagine someone unable to speak who can only nod or make some motion to "indicate".....

Peter Hyatt said...


I have had a lot of experience with people using the word "indicated" with most all of it deceptive.

The subject does not want to quote the person, as it would be a lie, so they interpret something and turn it into what they want; an indication of what they want.

Dylan "indicated" is to say, Dylan DID NOT SAY, BUT IT IS what Mark Redwine wants us to believe Dylan said.

Dylan did not


Listening said...

Has there been any updates or anything on the mail woman? I find her statement interesting (unfortunately). She seems to be in the middle of this, OR maybe she's just placed herself in the middle of it, like we see all too often (see: The DiPietro Women). If she's saying she saw the boy, therefore thinks MR wasn't the last to see him, does that mean SHE was (one of) the last to see him? If not involved, why get involved?

~ABC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
~ABC said...

Excellent Peter. I suspected something like that. Thank you for validating and elaborating!

I'm curious if someone using the terminology "It was/is my understanding...." would be similar in purpose?


Peter Hyatt said...

I have had a lot of experience with people using the word "indicated" with most all of it deceptive.

The subject does not want to quote the person, as it would be a lie, so they interpret something and turn it into what they want; an indication of what they want.

Dylan "indicated" is to say, Dylan DID NOT SAY, BUT IT IS what Mark Redwine wants us to believe Dylan said.

Dylan did not


~ABC said...

LOL Anon @6:46, 6:49 and 7:03.

I have a life. And it's apparently so intriguing that it held your attention for at least a full 15 mins.

I think it's hillarious when people project themselves onto others....

Anonymous said...

I throw a handful of urine soaked newspaper at your anus.


Anonymous said...


~ABC said...

Anon @ 10:13 and 11:47.

May God Bless You and allow you to see the Divine Intelligence that dwells underneath all that anger and insecurity.

Anonymous said...

Thank you ~ABC I wanted assurances ;0( xxxx