Sunday, July 7, 2013

Statement Analysis Test: Mother of Two Kidnapping On Tape

The following is a video taped interview, placed over the actual store video, showing a man attempting to kidnap a 2 year old child.

Listen carefully to the mother's language.

Do you find any indicators of deception?

Since the video confirms the facts that took place, comment upon the language she uses, focusing your thoughts on two specifics:

1.  What verbs does she use?

a. Does this indicate veracity?
b. How are they linked to her pronouns?

2.  Emotions

a.  Where are her emotions in the interview?
b.  What does this tell you?

*We are looking for your explanation on the location of her emotions in the account.  What do you make of her inclusion of Divinity?  Is this a signal of deception?  Why or why not?  Please explain your answer.

http://www.godvine.com/Mother-of-Toddler-Held-at-Knifepoint-Praises-Jesus-for-Saving-Her-3577.html

Thank you to the one who sent this.  It is valuable in training.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am interested to hear the analysis. She seemed to be embellishing and "wants" to thank Jesus but doesn't.
This is obviously a suicide by cop...the guy wanted to die.

Sus said...

I don't know where emotions should be located so I can't comment on that.

I find it interesting that the sister thought the man was an "old friend" of her mothers.

The mother felt the need to say she felt comfortable and safe before the man grabbed Zoe. Doesn't she normally?

The mother never calls her daughter by name, yet calls the perpetuator Sammy in the telling.

She knew the man wanted her to see his knife and thought they would have to leave with him...telling somehow what was in his mind.

She said she immediately prayed for "their" and then cut herself off and said "his" family. Who is "their"? Does she know Sammy and/or someone connected to him?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't think much of this statement coming across it on my own but because it's posted here I'm looking for what I can think of it -- I see a woman who is not comfortable owning her natural anger, she should fucking hate that guy and want him to suffer and be soooo glad he is dead. I guess her language changes to that which she thinks she should say rather than the emotional facts --- as she discusses wanting to wish the man well. Also I don't think she really wanted to go back in there. if she did there would have been an actual moment of struggle where she tried to get in there and the cops restrained her.

Anonymous said...

This is sickening and pathetic beyond words.

Here we have a lovely, sweet, adoring, Christian mother standing up for the precious Name of Jesus; forgiving and praying for her oppressor while giving thanks and praise to Jesus in all things, AS HE TOLD US TO DO; while here some of you sit, crucifying her.

You are to be pitied. You are no better than those who insulted and spit on Christ. Your words against this woman are the same as spitting on Him all over again. May God have mercy on your soul(s).

Ivanna-Anna said...

I went over the video again and again, and/but didn't notice almost anything odd. She doesn't show strong emotions, and she doesn't talk negatively about him.

She gets (slightly) emotional at the point where she tells about his crying:

"I said I prayed for her for three years and the Lord gave her to me... Please don't hurt her." And then he had a tear running down his face, yeah, he started crying.

So her emotion is brought on by the thought that he reacted to what she said about the Lord.

She also seems to get emotional about how she prayed for the Lord to show mercy. (Does she get emotional from the thought that she herself shows mercy?)

She "wants to" give glory to the Lord but does she?

She repeats being thankful, but to whom?

I failed the task. I don't know the answer.

Nic said...

"just a grocery sss. grocery shopping trip"

The word "just" indicates there was something else. Another errand? I would ask her if there was another erand. Restarting her story.

"I, I just need to get some groceries and uh..."

Stuttering. Tension. The word "just" is repeated.


"I felt comfortable. I felt safe in my surroundings."

Not relaying the facts. Perfect placement of emotions like she is telling a *story*.


There was this tall, huge man standing there with her, with my baby in his arms and I saw the knife?" And uh, I thought, 'This can't be real."

Change in reality her/my baby. When her daughter is "safe" she is a her. When she sees her daughter in danger she becomes "my baby".

"This can't be real."

Initially I thought he was going to make us come with him and leave. And we were going to have to leave with him." Immediately I panicked

Perfect placement of thought/emotion.

This is where I stopped transcribing and just listened to the interview in its entirety because this woman was making it all about her, not her kid.

My thoughts are that this interview is about her and her image. She sounds like she's telling a campfire story. She never once says her baby's name. Lots of "I's" "He made sure I saw the knife." Not once did she refer to her daughter's life being threatened. It was about her. Not her kid. "We were going to have to leave with him." Not, I was afraid he was going to leave with "my baby".

Please help "me", please help "me". ???

Please don't hurt *my* baby. *I* prayed for her for 3 years. (Three being the liars number.)

The whole relay is fluffed with perfectly placed thought and emotion. Mostly about the mother and not at all about Zoe. The only person who referred to the baby by name was the interviewer.

I found her thankfulness disengenuous.

No doubt it was a scary episode, but in hindsight the mom doesn't seem to be too "damaged" by the ordeal. Not sure about the Zoe though. She never says.

VLW said...

I've watched the video just once, but in that cursory viewing I didn't pick up on anything that caused me doubt her story. She spoke of herself in the first person and she used past tense verbs. I'm not sure what "emotions" we're talking about here--she talked about panicking, but that seems pretty straightforward and to be expected, and that at one point she felt like "going at him", but this took place after the situation had been ongoing for a bit, so I'm not sure if that's the "wrong place" for emotions to be described or not. She is telling about this some time AFTER the incident is over. She praises the Lord Jesus Christ for a safe outcome for her daughter which, again, seems straightforward. It's not as though she "felt the Lord was telling her" to do something-or-other in the midst of the crisis, which might be considered deceptive in some cases. Did I pass or fail the analysis?

VLW said...

Me again. Reading Nic's analysis I see what you're getting at about the emotions. "I felt comfortable, I felt safe." My question is, was this remark given in answer to a question by the interviewer which we didn't hear?

Anonymous said...

jesus christ people the womans kid was taken at knifepoint and you're putting down the mother, you people have too much time on your hands.

Anonymous said...

They sure do, Anon @ 4:46. This is a sac-religious bunch if ever I've seen one. They have scales on their eyes. One feeds off the other and so on and on until they have thoroughly crucified their intended subject of ridicule, which is their intended purpose from the outset. They are sick with it.

They have zero discernment of spirits, or wisdom, and that includes Peter for ever raising such doubts(?) concerning the horror of the tension filled situation this poor woman suffered with a knife at her childs' throat, yet retained the presence of mind to pray for the attacker and give praise to Jesus.

I have nothing but the highest respect for the way she handled this horrifying situation from beginning to end.

Sus said...

Yes Nic,
The mother describes the kidnapper's emotions more than her baby's! She is focused on him, or perhaps her generous Christian spirit toward him.

The mother then tells how she reacted when she heard the shot. How about her baby? Was she crying? Frightened? Screaming for her mother? The mother does not seem focused on her baby who was kidnapped, but on her own Christian spirit as it relates to the "story."

Nic said...

VLW, what is your first thought/impression when you walk into Wal-Mart?

I bet "I feel safe and comfortable?" isn't it. It's not expected.

Anonymous, 4:46, thanks for driving my point home. The woman's KID was taken at KNIFE POINT and all she could talk about was herself and her emotions and weaken her daughter's danger by using "we" (as in "we would have to leave with him"). Not I was afraid he was going to leave with Zoe/my baby." When the perp had Zoe, she was still using "I" the whole time. She never once projected how afraid Zoe must have been, etc.

Nic said...

Oh, and I want to point out, Zoe's sister did a great job telling what happened to HER SISTER.

Sus said...

Nic said, "Oh, and I want to point out, Zoe's sister did a great job telling what happened to HER SISTER."

BY NAME!!

Anonymous said...

Ha! I'd be interested in knowing how rattled you all might be when one of your own gets kidnapped or has a knife held to your or their throat. Think about THAT, if you will; perfect little specimens that you think you are.

Meanwhile, I don't recall where I've ever read that God needs a single one of you to judge one of His own, their Christianity and whether it is genuine or not. You're not the reader of hearts and minds. Only God can do that.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when you face your OWN mortal judgment and it comes up before God how you persecuted one of His own without tender mercy.

surprised said...

Zoe looked calm and didn't react when the man took her.

Anonymous said...

Of course not. She's only two. His holding a knife at her throat apparently didn't even register. She knew no fear.

Another sign of a mothers' lovely teachings; she wasn't afraid of the black man, otherwise she might have screamed hysterically in fear of his color whether she saw the knife or not.

BostonLady said...

I thought I commented but now I don't see it. I'm losing it :)

In watching the video, I see the man take the little girl out of the shopping cart and then walk over to the mother. If he was kidnapping her, why didn't he just run out of the store? Did he know the mother?

Anonymous said...

Investigation status[edit]
In January 2010, after crime scene photographs of Colonial Parkway murder victims were used inappropriately to instruct a class by a retired and now deceased former FBI photographer, the bureau reopened its investigation of the Colonial Parkway murders.[9][dead link] Investigators soon found that evidence, stowed for over two-decades, had yet to be tested for DNA. Responding to media criticism, the FBI met with the victims' families. Dozens of pieces of evidence were then submitted to the FBI's crime lab for DNA analysis. The FBI reportedly told the victims' families that the results of DNA testing should be available in the latter part 2010, although the testing of crime scene evidence and interviews of suspects have continued through the fall of 2011.
As of 2013, the killer has not yet been identified. Investigators have speculated that the suspect might be a law enforcement officer, someone impersonating one, or perhaps a rogue operative from the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a training facility nearby at Camp Peary in York County. Other investigators believe the killings were committed by more than one person working as a team.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Parkway_Killer

Anonymous said...

Seriously? Mom should be commended for NOT teaching her daughter to fear the big black man? OMG it's not 1965

surprised said...

Anon at 9:13 PM
I meant she didn't react when a STRANGER removed her from the shopping cart.

Anonymous said...

We should ALL warn the little Ones the
DANGERS OF THE B.MAN,observer

Anonymous said...

What is the value in the use of this video for training purposes other than to slam someone's religion, or as it's been stated, her "use of divinity?" Are you falsely implying that this mother hoaxed up this dangerous snatching of her child with the kidnapper? Or that it is all a lie if she mentions or gives praise to Jesus?

So you don't like her praying to have this baby for three years, one of you calling this the "liars'" number, (if every reference to the number three is a lie, why don't you have it deleted from usage?); and you don't like her references and praise to Jesus, and her prayer and forgiveness for the one who snatched her baby at knife point; I have yet to read the first lie or deception made by this mother. Bring it, if you think you can.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the guy ever intended to leave the store with this baby; if he had, he would NOT have walked up to the mother with the baby in his arms, instead he would have fled quickly with the baby.

But that's not what he did. He WANTED to be stopped. The mother was right in the way she talked to him, the things she said to him, and right in saying a prayer for him. He was a tormented soul to whom she showed compassion even though he held a knife to her childs' throat.

Not many of us could do what she did.

rob said...

Wasn't this man known to have long term mental problems. I would think nothing he did would be considered normal.
How would I react if a crazy man took my child from the cart? I don't know, but with the knife in his hand, talking was probably the best she could do till she got some help, to maybe distract him.
I don't see a problem with the mothers statement.

Jeff said...

Unfortunately, the interview was a planned studio taping, so we don't know what sort of instructions/influence she received from the director or interviewer. Still, statement analysis can get to the truth :) Full analysis demands more space than can be afforded in a comment, but ultimately, the woman appears to be more interested in herself than anyone, and lacks a genuine emotional connection with her daughter. She appears to be a Trophy Wife mimicking the behavior of a human being.

shmi said...

I believe she did everything right. The outcome was that her child did not get kidnapped or die. I think she focuses on "I" because this incident happened to her. It will hopefull be the worst thing that ever happens to her.

Jen said...

My take is this mother shows distancing and tries to somewhat 'rehab' her (and her daughter's experience)of this traumatic event.

Part 1

"It's just a grocery shopping trip...I just needed to get some groceries.":

-begins present tense, ends past tense and uses JUST twice. she uses this to preface the story and to state, 'it was a normal day like any other, I was minding my business, doing nothing wrong, etc.'

"I felt comfortable & safe in my surroundings."

-this uses correct past tense but the need to state it shows sensitivity. The interview is clearly spliced, so she may have been asked if she felt comfortable/safe, but if not it is likely reflective of the fact she no longer feels safe after this experience, and therefore distinguishes feeling safe as before the incident.

"When I turned around there was this tall, huge man standing there with my daughter in his arms, and I saw the knife, and I thought this can't be real."

-As she begins to recount the event she is consistent in her past tense verbs (turned, was, standing, saw, thought). She relays the story from her first hand experience, first she noticed his proximity to her, then his towering size, then her daughter and then the knife...then her thoughts, 'this can't be real'.

MoJo said...

Here are my impressions based on viewing the video twice.

1. The mother is not commenting "freely." She is responding to prompts/questions by the reporter. Her statement might be a bit different/very different if she had been asked, "Will you tell us what happened?"

2. The mother requested/allowed her older (but still relatively young) daughter to participate in the news interview. I find that remarkable, given the traumatic nature of the event they are describing/reliving. I believe it may speak to some underlying characteristic of the mother - needs support? unconfident? I think this is supported by the mother's actions when the child was taken (did not attack/confront the man directly, called for help). By the way, my comments are not judgements of right or wrong. I'm merely trying to match words to actions.

3. The mother's language distances herself from the kidnapped child (not naming her, not describing specific concern for how the child was feeling). I believe this speaks to the very real danger she felt (and still feels looking back) for the child. I think it is her way of coping (by distancing) with the situation.

4. The mother "humanizes" the kidnapper. She mentions the tear he sheds when she begs for the safety of her daughter. She initially describes the kidnapper in words appropriate for a stranger (I don't remember the exact words - large man?), but later (after he "passed"), she names him as Sammy. Someone in a previous comment mentioned the kidnapper had a long history of mental illness. This may explain her need to see his as a person (who is best met with mercy) and her comments about his family. I also want to comment about her use of the word "passed." Whaaat? He didn't pass. He was shot dead in the head at close range by a policeman. I think this again speaks of a tendency to distance herself to troubling issues.

Anonymous said...

This is a beautiful woman, wife and mother. She IS all of those things and more. She is genuine. There is nothing "trophy" about her.

Having read all these posts AND Peters' article questioning her divinity/religious beliefs and practices; I STILL have not read the first trick, lie, scheme, device or hint of deceit practiced by her. Still waiting.

CanadianGirl said...

Her verbs seemed to be appropriate and well placed as she is retelling what happened.
-talking quietly
-took my baby
-screaming for help
-he had a tear
-he had her in his hands
etc.

Her emotions:
-she felt safe, comfortable shopping in wal-mart
-she panicked when she thought they would have to leave with him
-she screamed for help
-she told him she had prayed for three years for her baby
-she screamed when she heard a gun shot
-she is now tears up when seeing her daughter playing
-she prayed to God to have mercy on Sammy and prayed for his family
-she called it his passing (she seems uncomfortable at this point of the interview)

I personally don't see any red flags and I don't think you were asking us to find fault with her misfortune or with the retelling of her events.

Happy her child is safe and probably has no emotional connection to what happened. Seems like a happy, trusting baby as she didn't squirm or scream when she was taken. Even the older daughter didn't get scared as her sister was taken out of the cart.

Anonymous said...

MoJo, it is customary for most Christians to refer to one having died as having "passed" regardless as to how we/they die. Passing from one life into another is what we do when we die as it is the temporal body that dies and not the soul.

Our soul does not die. We merely "pass" from our bodily mortality into spirit/soul immortality. She did the right thing in praying for his soul (and his family) before he passed. It is God who leads us to pray. For some, I don't think they would hear God if he did tell them to pray. They already know more than He does, or think they do.

There are many scriptures relating to prayer for our adversaries, our persecutors, the soul, death, forgiveness and life eternal. I do not doubt for one second that God heard her prayers; Him being the one who TELLS us to pray.

Yes, the man passed on to his eternal afterlife where the soul never dies; being shot in the head was merely the method of his physical death.

Jen said...

Part 2

'He made sure that I saw THAT knife, and he was talking quietly, and I thought, initially, I thought he was going to make us come with him, and we were going to have to leave with him...SO, immediately I panicked and I just started screaming, "Please help me, this man has my baby", and I screamed at the top of my lungs for everybody to hear".

-she identifies the weapon as THAT knife, which makes sense as the weapon would be something she wants to distance herself and her daughter from. She also tells us that he was speaking to her quietly, but doesn't tell us what he said. However by the rest of her statement it seems pretty clear that he told her to be quiet/not scream, since she says she IMMEDIATELY panicked (acted out of fear) and started screaming for help, loudly for everyone to hear. Her reaction is expected, but she explains her actions using 'SO', and the timeframe of 'immediately' indicating sensitivity. Although she did exactly what any of us would/should, she may feel some guilt or uncertainty about whether her actions escalated the situation, especially if she went against his instructions.

"I TOLD Sammy when he had her in his arms, I said "Please don't hurt my baby"..I said, "I prayed for her for 3 years and the Lord gave her to me...please don't hurt her"..and then he had a tear running down his face..yeah, he started crying".

-She uses 'told', but then changes to 'said' when describing her plea for her daughters safety, which makes sense as she is not in a position of authority, but basically begging a stranger for mercy. She describes his reaction as emotional, and connects his emotion with her introduction of her daughter as a gift the Lord gave her after much prayer. Whether true or not (as we cannot know the reason for his emotion) it likely helps her to believe that something she said reduced the danger her daughter was in, and that the abductor had some humanity within him.

Anonymous said...

VERY nice post, Canadian Girl @ 11:47. I saw all the same things you did. This is a well-rounded, peaceful and happy family, filled with love and the sunshine of life. I hope it continues on and on for them, and that this mother is able to put this horror behind her.

Because she has a solid foundation, I believe she will. I just hope her husband doesn't start to blame her for what happened. If he does, therein might lie a problem yet to face.

Jen said...

Part 3

(She is asked by the interviewer if she thought about attacking the abductor and taking back her child)

"When they took me up front to get away from him, umm, there was a point when I wanted to just run in there and give him all that I could to take my baby back".

-this is a statement where I feel she lacks veracity. She begins by explaining that she was taken away from him, to the front of the store which removes the option from her control. Then she says 'there was a point' (unspecific) when she wanted to run in there and 'give him all that she could'...which doesn't directly describe a physical confrontation. She may have felt put on the spot by the interviewer, (like that is how she was supposed to feel), but I don't think she considered taking him on physically during the encounter based on her words.

"When I heard the gunshot, I immediately thought he had killed her, and I just started screaming and jerking around and throwing my hands in the air. She had blood all over her arm and leg, and immediately ...I mean I knew she was alive, I could tell she was alive...but he said, "its not her blood, its not her blood, she's ok".

-this paragraph troubles me, I don't see deception but I can hardly concentrate because I'm having a hard time even reading it. She was clearly traumatized by hearing the gunshot and seeing her daughter covered in blood as she repeats 'it's not her blood' twice. I hope she and both of her daughters get plenty of help dealing with the horror they experienced that day.

"I'm just so thankful when I watch her play...I look at her and I just, I start crying because I'm so thankful I have her".

-present tense, seems straightforward truthful to me.

"I wanna give glory to the Lord Jesus Christ for hearing my cry out for help...after I found out the ending...when I knew that he had passed away, umm..I just prayed for the Lord to show mercy, and umm..I prayed for his family and the comfort of their..of his family".

-her mention of Divinity I see as her natural desire to distance and 'rehab' the outcome. She refers to his death as 'the ending', which is a very soft and distant way to describe the reality of what happened. A man who held and threatened to harm her daughter was shot to death inches from her daughters head. If he hadn't been shot then her daughter could be dead right now. It is an unpleasant reality either way, so attributing his death to God's plan, or answer to her prayers allows a surrender of control, and gives her a sense that her daughter was being watched over and protected even when she was unable to do so. Some things are so painful that all we can do is give them to God, and I think that is what she is doing while also showing compassion toward her daughter's attacker and family.

Shayna said...

Readers often request examples where a subject has later been proven to be telling the truth. Perhaps he is showing us that sometimes, even though a subject invokes divinity, they are still telling the truth.
Statement analysis is a TOOL. It is meant to help detect sensitivity to a topic, which can indicate deception. It is not an end all and be all that gives one truth vs. deception.
Also, fromreading here a while, I'm reasonable certain Peter is a RELIGIOUS man. I don't believe his question was meant to disparage the mother. I think it was educational. ( "I think" leaving the option that you may think otherwise.)

Mainah said...

I feel the production and/or editing prevents a good analysis. I wonder how much the subject (mom) is "entering into the interviewers language" AND emotions. The interviewer may be inadvertently coaching, or intentionally for added sensation, showing facial expressions which the subject seemed to respond to and mimic. She points when the interviewer points, etc.

I've not recounted a traumatic event for public consumption but I imagine/expect it would be minimally awkward and at most a terrifying re-traumatizing experience. I may look to the interviewer for support and validation, as the subject seemed to.

To the critics: To discern truth is not to "judge" truth as good or bad first and then decide based on desired outcome (personal bias). I think you may be passing judgement prior to discerning the truth. I catch myself doing this too. I identify with people I see as "like me". As a mom myself, I'm compelled to route for her and her innocent family and their safety.

We can't make something be true just because we want it to be a certain way.


~ABC said...

Thank you Shayna!

Sus said...

The mother's story is now embellished and a religious experience...because she is being interviewed by Godvine, a Christian station.

I searched for other interviews with the mother and found a Today show one. Her only mention of God in that interview was something like "Oh my God."

Media can easily influence those being interviewed.I saw comments on open carry on this story. I imagine some journalist could have slanted the story that way. Or obviously it could be slanted toward a mental health issue.

Anonymous said...

Shayna, from your post at 1:21, I quote: "I'm reasonably certain Peter is a religious man." I disagree with you. Sure, he knows a little Bible scripture; who doesn't? I thought Peter was a religious man too at one time, but it's clear that he is not a practicing Christian. He wouldn't be so quick to pass judgment on others if he were.

The more I read his articles and carefully consider them and his attitude towards so many in political life that he despises due to the fact that theirs is not the party he favors, as well as his personal prejudices, plus ignoring the lies and deceptions of those he choses to ignore, (two examples, George Zimmerman, numerous lies, and Edward Snowden, a conniving thief); these he overlooks because he 'favored' them, then never admits when he is wrong; try as he might to justify himself, these are not the traits of an honest truth seeker.

These are small instances that leads me to wonder if Peter "thinks" he has been appointed by God to determine whose a liar and who isn't based on his obsessive compulsive behavior in certain issues, and accusatory mind, convincing himself he is qualified to pass judgment on others. I'm not saying that he is not right in some of his statement analysis precepts, but he certainly is not the judge of one's spirituality, nor can he ascertain every little instance of deception without using some common sense.

He is NOT the reader of mans' souls nor can he judge their divine spirituality like he thinks he can. In fact, not withstanding religion, I'd go so far as to say that Peter may have a little mental problem of his own. He seems to enjoy troublemaking. It shows when I see him spewing disdain in some of his articles and his support of other posters here who follow in his footsteps even though they have wounded and insulted someone else who merely sought an explanation.

I sure don't plan to follow him and every little controversy he stirs up without proof.

Anonymous said...

Shut up u infatuated little shit!!! My Peter IS a lovely man!!! Unlike you,your an islamic PIG faced sweaty foot licking homosexual homo rapist ape,Observer

abc is a thief rascist said...

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxddd

Anonymous said...

I find it amusing that Anonymous 3:35pm slammed Peter for "making judgments" when that's exactly what s/he did to him: judged him.

Anonymous said...

What did She say???,

Anonymous said...

Yes!!!! Shes a homosexual pork eating feet sniffer,and a jealous homo homo homoooo,Observer

Anonymous said...

@anon 3:35- project much? The only one with an OBVIOUS mental problem is u, Anon 1, Observer, Midnight, Lurker, FL, and whatever u decide to call yourself 2mrw!

Jen said...

Drum roll please:

And the award for most hypocritical and ironic comment of the day goes to.............

dadgum said...

http://www.wbtv.com/story/22743458/toddler-burned-davonta-ford-monique-smith-arrested-nobles-avenue

She doesn't own an iron. Forget the broken bones, scalded face, and belt marks on a 2 year old..she doesn't even own an iron.

Drugs. Again. For those who don't think drug use hurts anyone else..they should read these instances of druggie family life.

sha said...

This woman strikes me as what my granddaughter would call a "phony". She has words for her emotions but she doesn't show much in her face, or her eyes (too much botox? - still too much botox does tend to make one a phony, too).

It stood out to me she calls this piece of crap, child abductor, child threatening monster "Sammy" ~ WHAT? Sammy? I don't think I could call the #*$&@ that put a knife to my toddler daughter "Sammy".

The other daughter thought this man was a friend of her moms? Mom says something about hoping THEIR (erm I mean his) family gets peace....I agree with the people that said it really seems like she knows OF this guy because she knows someone in his family?

What does praying for this baby for three years have to do with anything? Would she have cared a little less if she had only prayed for the baby for a year? Even less if she hadn't prayed? How about "here take the older kid she wasn't planned for, I never prayed for that one...."

I understand thanking God, what about thanking the people that helped her? Thank the guy that had to kill that MONSTER (erm i mean SAMMY) to save her kid.

veruca said...

Oy vey!
Come the EFF on people....

veruca said...

Terrible.

Anonymous said...

OH COW OFF!!!!! Stop clogging up Peters blog with your bile,Observer

Anonymous said...

Im chrisopher gaylord.RVP=TURD!

Anonymous said...

Without discernment we have tv evangelists, con men, and scammers of all kinds preying on the elderly, simple-minded, naive or trusting people. It isn't wrong to try to discern truth from deception. It is our responsibility. I would love to live in a world where we could trust everyone or where the good guys all wear white and the bad guys wear black. A world with no charming Ted Bundys or wolves in sheep's clothing. But since it isn't that easy, we have to practice discernment. As pointed out already, judgement and discernment aren't the same thing and unless we question what we see and hear, we set ourselves up to become victims.

Anonymous said...

Black=bad,Observer

Anon "I" said...

Perhaps this was a man whom she had passed by and exchanged brief pleasantries with prior to this incident. Her first instinct was to scream for help without restraint when she saw the knife. Her first words to him were to personalize her child as a blessing. I believe her and think that her view is now from a place of safety and has been processed over time. What a hard situation to have gone through and what a hard situation to try to process mentally.

As for Peter, searching for the truth seems like as noble a profession as one could have.

Mainah said...

“The word 'truth' itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.” —F.A. Hayek

Faith said...

What leaped out at me was the fact that she referred to the kidnapper as "Tommy" ... that screamed she knew this guy vs the fact that she never used her daughter's name. As some have said though, that might be due to the heavy editing. But putting myself in her position, I can't ever imagine, in any reality, calling the man that snatched my baby from the shopping cart in front of me by his first name as though he was familiar to me. That is unexpected!

Anonymous said...

Nice job, Jen! I agree with your analysis.

I think the mom is experiencing doubt and guilt about her own actions - which leaked through. Guilt, perhaps, that she had not been paying close enough attention to her toddler. Maybe guilt that she had been too shaky to dial the phone as asked by the man - maybe she thinks the situation would not have escalated. Maybe she feels "survivors guilt" - she and her family ended up unharmed, but a mentally ill man was killed.

I'm NOT saying she is guilty of anything. This was an awful, frightening situation that was completely beyond her control. But I do believe it's a natural reaction to second guess your own actions when something bad happens, and to feel responsible - even for things over which you have no control. Especially if you're a parent.

BostonLady said...

I'm waiting patiently for Peter to provide his analysis of this interview. I didn't see anything deceptive from the mother. However she did minimize what happened using the term "passed" instead of "killed" when the mentally ill kidnapper was shot. I also do not understand why she adds that she prayed for 3 years for her baby.

The biggest thing that jumps out at me is visual. The kidnapper picked up the baby out of the cart and instead of running out of the store, walked casually over to the mother. The sister even remarked that she thought he was an old friend of her mothers...

Jen said...

Hi Anon 8:25

Thanks and I agree, I think she did the best she could considering the nitemare she was thrust into. And I think its a normal process after the fact to feel guilt and run thru 100's of possible scenarios and outcomes. As I said before, I hope she has plenty of support and help dealing with the aftermath.

Sus said...

I'm going to try this again. The mother is not deceptive about the facts.. Of course, she is not deceptive. She has a film, numerous witnesses, and LE to verifify the facts.

The deception in this piece is in the manner in which the facts are framed...what the journalist and mother decided to focus on..."Giving glory to God."

This is a slanted piece of journalism with the mother's spirituality the focus rather than the facts of the event. If she were interviewed by "Psychology Today", the focus may have been quite different.

What we are fed is up to the media. Edward Snowden is the prime example. He made himself the story rather than what he is releasing and proved he wasn't honest in his intentions.

PS Peter, It's why you should look beyond Fox news. Now they like to frame a story and create a false focus. :)

Lemon said...

What stands out to me is the difficulty in analysis without interpretation. It is difficult to not be influenced by the "emotion" of the event and empathy, especially with a video including a mother and young daughter.

I found her inclusion of emotions about how she felt about going to WalMart odd. I also found her use of the kidnapper's first name, Sammie, very familiar and uncomfortably "close".

Some aspects of her recounting sound like "story telling" or embellishing. The facts are there, but her version sounds embellished.

Anonymous said...

I love Peter Xxx ,Observer

Anonymous said...

Veruca, are you aware that the name you are using is the shortened version of the name of a specific throat cancer?

It is a squamous papilloma known as verrucous carcenomia and when spoken of by ENT physicians is shortened to veruca. Thought you might like to know.

bitch anon evil cancer mocking bitch said...

Stfu u nasty TURD @ anon 08:05

Anonymous said...

"OBSERVER"Says your Makinng"fun"Out of cancer.

Anonymous said...

Evil veruca,observer

CanadianGirl said...

Anon @ 8:25pm, yes, I think she feels guilt. There is nothing to feel guilty for as she did nothing wrong, but that is how the emotions and the human mind work.

Jen @ 10:15pm yup, I have a feeling she probably went through many scenarios, alternatives and outcomes in her mind afterwards. I have a feeling she would have wanted it to end with everyone safe and sound including "Sammie".

Sus, it was a religious program so I'm sure they asked her to include a heavy emphasis on her faith. They probably edited a lot and focused on the religious experience.

Lemon, I wonder if her emotions regarding Walmart had to do with the issue of whether or not her town/Walmart is usually a safe place to be. She did what most mothers would do and that is leave her toddler in the cart with her sister watching her (she was only one or two steps away from the cart). There was no reason to feel unsafe and have her children attached to one of the child safety security ropes that I've seen mother's place on their children in the mall.

Yes, using "Sammie" is odd, but again I attribute it to emotions. I think she is trying to make the incident less traumatic by giving him a name and seeing him as a human being (a mentally ill one at that) and trying not to have a hardened heart towards him. This is part of the process of Christian based forgiveness.
Praying for "Sammie" and his family might help her with forgiveness.
I still think she's emotionally scarred by this experience, but we each deal with trauma in different ways.

As for "embellishment" I don't see it. I think the way that we retell a story/incident has to do with our personality and where we place our emphasis. I'm an animated person and my story would have been all over the place and filled with plenty of emotional description.

Sorry for the long post, but this is such a bizarre story, which probably has a lot to do with "Sammie's" mental health issues. I think he wanted to die and never intended to hurt anyone. The count down was probably his way of saying, "hurry up and shoot me please,put me out of my misery".

Sus said...

Canadiangirl,
This is a statement analysis blog. Get past the emotions to find the truth. In the vid, the interviewer and the mother are assigning emotions to "Sammie." The mother especially humanizes him and practically transfers her emotions to him. I thought at first she knew him, she so has transfered emotionally to his thinking.

But we don't know him or his emotions or motive. The mother may want to assign a Christian motive, but it doesn't make it so. Get past the emotions and station (in this case religious) and look at the words.

The only words I know the guy said were nonsensical. It sounds more like he was a schizo locked in pain looking for a way out.

CanadianGirl said...

Sus,
I'm aware of that, this is why I'm at this blog; to learn about Statement Analysis.
But the interview with the mother is full of emotion based statements and can't be ignored. In her situation I'm not focused on "truth" or "facts" as to what happened, because they have it all on video. This one is very interesting because of all the emotions noted in her narrative.

I'm anxiously waiting for Peter to give his analysis.

Anonymous said...

Your posts are excellent and well thought out, Canadian Girl. Some of these posters pretend they're experts when they aren't. Every now and then they get one right just based on happenstance then think they know it all. Trust me, they don't.

What analysis? On this subject there isn't much to say since the whole matter was captured on video as it happened, with nary a lie or deceit in sight. The only thing left to draw on was to slam the mothers' religion which I noted was done quite nicely by several.

Besides that, you might have a long wait for Peter to give his analysis as frequently he doesn't do follow up anyhow, particularly when no deception was noted, only imaginary accusations to try to imply the mother is guilty of something and further slam her religious beliefs and practices.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a formula that Peter mentions about how much of a story is devoted to the foretelling, the actual event, the sensory details, and the outcome?

If applied to this mother's account it seems that it is mostly "in proportion" with what should be expected.

Lemon said...

familiar snarkapotamus at 7:33-

"What analysis" indeed. Do you have anything to add to the analysis, or just kvetch and moan?

I suggest a pet.

The Kvetching and Moaning blog is three doors down, on the left. Open all night. Mazel.

~ABC said...

Lemon said...
familiar snarkapotamus at 7:33-


LOLOLOL. Ohhhhh wheeeeeee. (tears) Thank you Lemon.
I think I know the snarkapotamus'esssusss other name too.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:05, ever seen "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"? Veruca Salt was a character in the movie. Also the name of a 1990's rock band. I am betting the poster using the name is referring to one or both of those, and not to a type of cancer. SMH!

john said...

Hi all im back,lots to catch up on..

christopher gaylord said...

RVP=TURD!

john said...

Just one thing regarding her body language.

When she says"He made sure i saw that knife" Her right hand mimics holding a knife, it is very congruent with her words.

The mimicing of of holding the knife comes right a the point she says her words,not before or not after.Also when she describes the tear rolling down his cheek,this is also congruent with her words.



Has she had botox? There are NO emotions in here face,i would expect her to show anger and fear given the situation.

What puzzles me though, is WHY he goes over to her.



johny fratypants said...

Some humans are animals.