Friday, November 1, 2013

Red Lobster Racial Controversy Letter Analyzed

The Red Lobster Racial Slur Controversy 
by Peter Hyatt 

A waitress claimed to have received a racist note on the check at a Red Lobster.   Where the line for tip was, it said, "None" (this was a pick up order).

Underneath it, it said "Nigger" (my assumption since it is partially redacted).

Statement Analysis deals with words.  Was it the customer's intention to be racist?  Or, as others have asked, was it the intention of the waitress to exploit sympathies and make money?

Neither question will be answered here. Instead, we will look at what he wrote.

Statement Analysis deals with words spoken and what is not spoken.  What did he tell us?  What didn't he tell us?  What did we expect to hear?  Did he fulfill our expectation.

Presuppositonal Analysis is that we presuppose that the subject is truthful and his words will guide us.  Even as we project ourselves into the statement, we do so presupposing that the subject is being falsely accused.  This is our "expected" in analysis.

The "subject is dead; the statement is alive." This means that we are not analyzing the customer, nor are we analyzing the waitress.  We are analyzing the letter the customer wrote in response to the accusation that he wrote "None Nigger" on the check at Red Lobster.

Will the picture of the waitress holding up a large check influence your opinion?
Will the color of the pigments of either participant influence you?

Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN, from deals with principle and repetition.

In Statement Analysis, we seek truth.  We must begin with a question to answer.  We are not concerned with him being a racist, or him not being a racist, or with her being an opportunist, or not being an opportunist.

We want to know:  Did he write it or not? We will allow him to guide us.  The basic question is this:

Did he write the word, "Nigger" on the check below where the word "None" was written?

To do this, we need to view the words through the Scientific process (SCAN) and not through inflammatory pictures or thoughts.

My focus is his letter and what it tells us.

I.  The Letter He Wrote

II.  Specific Analysis of the Letter

I.  The Letter He Wrote

This is the letter, first in photo, and then in typed form, as it appears.  Then, we will break down the analysis:


I.  The Letter 

In Statement Analysis where there is an allegation, we begin with the "Expected" and ask ourselves, "If I were to be accused of writing "None Nigger" on a check to a black waitress, what would I say?"

If I did not write these words, I would say "I did not write these words"; quite plainly.  I would feel, emotionally and intellectually, that the burden of proof of this false accusation is with my accusers.  This is a certain form of confidence that says, "I didn't do it.  Either figure that out for yourself, or find a new job, because you're not qualified here..."

"The righteous are as bold as a lion."  Of course, its no secret that false bravado seeks to imitate the quiet confidence of the innocent.

Therefore, in a letter defending himself, I expect him to say "I didn't write it" and that's just about all I can think I would write.  I would not apologize, nor would I deliver a sermon on race, nor refer anyone to my attorney, and I would not likely call upon my character as a witness, or friends.  I don't think I would even write a letter, but since I must do some work on the "expected", I have to think of something.

Then, as in all accusatory analysis, we are left with "the unexpected"; that is, things within the statement that were not expected.

Kaaryn Gough did a wonderful job in demonstrating this in the Baby Lisa case.  Baby Lisa was reported missing by her mother, Deborah Bradley, who we indicated for deception.  Statement Analysis concluded that Bradley was deceptive, and Lisa was dead, and Bradley knows how she died, and where her remains were unceremoniously dumped.

Bradley went on television to protest those who doubted her, and wanted to convince her audience that Lisa was kidnapped.

Kaaryn wrote that we should look for words that accompany a kidnapping...simple words such as "kidnapping, ransom, contact..." and so on.

During the televised interview, these words were disturbingly absent.  Kaaryn demonstrated how Statement Analysis deals with what someone tells us, and sometimes, what someone does not tell us.

This was also seen plainly in the interview of Charlie Rogers where she claimed three men broke into her home, carved hateful slurs into her flesh while holding her down, and set fire to her home.

In a training exercise, I describe the above, and then I ask investigators to make a list of words they expect to hear.  "Brutal, scared, cut, justice, outrage..." and so on.  It took less than a minute for investigators to write out between 10 and 20 expected words.

Then, I play the video of Ms. Rogers and have them place check marks when they hear those words, and write down words of Ms. Rogers that were not expected.  They had blank marks next to the expected column, but added words that were surprising (unexpected) to them, including "game, pawn, respect" and not being afraid, in spite of the contention that three brutal nazi-like killers were on the loose.


It makes one think, or perhaps, it should.

Thousands supported Ms. Rogers and donated large sums of money.

I expect, in the Red Lobster customer letter, to tell me "I didn't write that on her check."  but not much else.

Let's see what he tells us, and let's see what he does not tell us.

II.  The Letter With Analysis 

The analysis is in bold type, with emphasis added by me.

"Please accept my apology for not being here in person, I had to work."

Where someone begins a statement is always important.  Sometimes it can even tell us the reason for the written statement. We note that the statement begins with the unexpected:

"my apology."

In Statement Analysis, we always note, for whatever reason, if apology or "I'm sorry" enters the subject's statement, anywhere. 

When Cindy Anthony called 911 to report her grandchild missing, she handed the phone to Caylee's killer, Casey Anthony.  When asked a question by the 911 operator, Casey said, "I'm sorry?", in the context of "excuse me?" as if a question was not heard.  We seek to learn if these words creep into the language of the guilty, as, perhaps, "leakage."

"Leakage" is a term we use to describe how words creep out, inadvertently, perhaps, from the brain.  We all have leakage when we speak.  Guilty people will sometimes leak that they have sorrow or regret, even while attempting to persuade that they have no reason for such.  Therefore, we note that in the first sentence of the letter, an apology exists. 

This is not expected to me, as one projecting himself into the situation, falsely accused of writing a racial slur to a waitress.  It is a red flag. Where one begins a statement is important and often the reason for the statement.  Here, he begins with an apology.  

Note next he used the word "here", and not "there", which would cause me to wonder where he was, geographically, when he wrote the statement.   Falsely accused, I would not care to travel to any location, nor would I apologize for not traveling or showing up.  I didn't say it, so they need to look elsewhere.  I have a job to go to.  

"I want to start out by saying I am innocent."

A weak assertion. 

Please note that he only "wants" to "start" out this way, and not that he is "innocent."  There are several problems with this sentence. 

There is a difference between saying, "I am innocent" and "I want to say I am innocent", with the latter being only a desire expressed.  Yet here, there is even more distance:  he only wants to "start" out by making this assertion.  This tells us that there is more information, since this is only a "start."

Next, note that many guilty people have no problem saying "I am innocent" instead of saying "I didn't do it."  

He is innocent, in fact.  

He has not been found guilty, nor pled guilty, to anything.  Therefore, judicially, this is a truthful statement and had he said, "I didn't write the N-word" and added, "I am innocent", it would have been acceptable.

Principle:  A declaration of innocence is not a Reliable Denial.

A Reliable Denial has three components.  If it has two, or more than three, it is not reliable. 

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  the past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"  (only Reid makes differential here) 
3.  The allegation is answered. 

Therefore, these are unreliable denials:

"Didn't do it."
"Didn't write the N word"
"I would not write that."
"I never wrote the N Word"

"would not" and "never" are not substitutions for "did not"and are Unreliable Denials.

"I didn't write the N word"
"I did not write Nigger on that bill..." or anything similar would be a Reliable Denial.  It also may have been found in the first sentence, perhaps only after a greeting. 

Judicially, he is innocent and not lying. 

"I was not raised that way in my household."

I have both done and said things that I am ashamed of to this day.  Unlike Frank Sinatra, I have many regrets, and hopefully I have learned from them.  If I could go back and change my life, with my understanding firmly "under the sun", I would take back every hurtful thing that I have ever said to anyone.  I don't appreciate those who boast of their pasts when they should be ashamed.  

I have both done and said things that I was not raised to do nor say.  Yet, in this letter, he asserts that he was not raised "that" way, with the word "that" showing distance.  Perhaps I might use distancing language too, yet I note it just the same. 

But there are three additional words in which, if removed, will still allow for a complete sentence:  "in my household."

The law of economy in sentences says that the shortest statement is best.  Why did he feel the need to add "in my household"?  Was something with him raised differently?  Was he raised in more than one household?  These three simple words generate questions that I would like to ask him. 

Yet, I still note that how one was raised is not to say "I didn't write it."

"When me and my wife got our meal to go, the ticket was brought to the table."

"My wife" is an incomplete social introduction, but it answers the question that I had about him being with someone else who might have been raised differently than the way he was raised in his household.  

Does the incomplete social introduction have bearing here?

It might. 

A complete social introduction of a spouse includes the name, title, and possessive pronoun.  It indicates a good relationship IN THIS PORTION OF THE STATEMENT.  

Objection:  maybe he did not want to use his wife's name.

Answer:  It is a good point and one to always remember.  Here, however, he signs his full name. 
Therefore, it is deemed an incomplete social introduction.  It does not sound bad, as "the" wife, but it does show a slight distancing point here in the statement.  

Did his wife write it?
Did his wife, perhaps raised in a different household, encourage him to write it?

I have questions for him, as statements help me prepare for interviews.  

"...the ticket was brought"

This is passive language.  Passivity in speech is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.  It may be that he does not show the identity of the person who brought the ticket because he does not know.  In the interview, I would explore this.

But what if it was the waitress that brought it?  Why didn't he say "the waitress brought the ticket..."?

More questions for him to answer.  Note that the ticket was not brought to him, but to the table.  
Was he not at the table at that time?  This is distancing language.  Does he not want to say that it was brought to him?  Does he not want to say it was brought to his wife?
Was he in the bathroom when the ticket came?

It is distancing language (passivity/inanimate object) which makes this less personal.  Why?

"I signed "none" in the tip line and my name on the signature line and left my ticket on the table.

I take notice of the pronoun "my" in the statement.  Here, he takes ownership of a ticket that has the word "Nigger" written on it, though it is not here in the statement.  What would I have written?

"I wrote "none" on the tip line, signed it and left it on the table" or I might have written "I wrote "none" on the tip line, signed my name and left the ticket on the table"

I would not have written the pronoun "my", since I was leaving it.  I would take "my copy" of it with me, if I paid with a credit card.  It would be mine because it has my credit card number on it and I am going to take it with me.  

Why the need to take ownership of a ticket with the racial slur written on it?  This is important. We often see possessive pronouns taking ownership of what belongs to them.  "My guilt" (OJ Simpson)  "My victim" (Stephen Trunscott)   "Our guilt" (Patsy Ramsey) 

Pronouns are instinctive and trustworthy. 

Thus far, he has told me it is his ticket, he is apologetic, and thus far he has not told me he did not write it.  

It was not until the next day that I discovered that somebody wrote the "N" word on my receipt.  

How was such a discovery made?

When one "discovers" something, there is generally a search found out.  I would not have used "discovery" here.  Would you?  

"The next day, I learned someone had written..." or "The next day, I heard that..." but the word "discovery" has an artificial feel to it, as if he wishes to convey an element of surprise. Was he searching for this?  Was he searching for someone else when he came upon "my" receipt?

Next, we have a change in language.  A change in language indicates a change in reality.  If not, it may be that the subject is deceptive and not working from memory.  For example, a "gun" on a police officer, may become a "weapon" while it is being fired, but then a "gun" when re-hostered.  A "girl" may become, in a young man's language, a "woman" when romantic contact has taken place. 

We look for a change in context that would cause a change in language. 

It was not just "a ticket" but it was "my ticket" when it was "left" on the table, but now, upon discovery, the "ticket" has become a "receipt", so what has changed?

Was the change due to the carbon copy that belongs to the customer?  This may explain the change in language.  The ticket is left for Red Lobster, but the receipt is with the owner. 
This may justify the change of language, but...

pronouns do not lie. 

It was "my" and not "the" in both places.  He takes instinctive ownership. 

If I had been falsely accused of writing a racial slur to a waitress, the paper it was written on would not be "mine" in any sense.  I would not take ownership of something like that.  It is not just a political hot potato, it is insulting, inflammatory and above all, ungentlemanly behavior and language.  I would not take ownership of it.  

Pronouns do not lie. 

"Somebody" wrote it is truthful. "Somebody" did. 

"At that time, we called my pastor who happens to be an attorney and asked his advice."

This is also the "unexpected" and there are problems within this sentence.  The least of which is that the pastor should be reminding the writer of the Scriptural mandate, "speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor", but that is commentary, and not analysis. 

Note first, "we" called "my" pastor.  "We" made the call.  Now there is some unity...hmm.  

Consistently over the years, whenever I hear "we called", I always ask, "Who called?  Did both of you dial the phone?"

This is an indication of desire to spread out responsibility.  

Did his wife speak to the pastor?

Why is it his pastor, but not "our" pastor?

Was the fact that he is his pastor, and not her pastor related to the different households they were raised in?

"who happens"

This is secondary, which indicates that the subject did not want to immediately say he called a lawyer. 

This is also unexpected. 

If I did not write the racial slur, and "discovered" it, I might call the restaurant to file a complaint against who did it, but my first call would not be to a lawyer.  (nor a pastor...) 

"I do not approve of that kind of talk, not now or ever!!!

He may not approve of it, and likely his pastor/attorney agreed, but he did not say that he did not write it. 

Please also note that he brings in a demarcation of time:  "not now or ever" which may cause one to wonder if there were other times when such language was approved of.  Does the subject anticipate the need to not approve later in life?

Note that "not approve" is not to condemn.  This is a softer statement than to actually condemn a racial insult. 

What do we have here, and what is missing?

The subject wrote a letter in which he apologized in the letter, and he took ownership of both the "ticket" and the "receipt" with the instinctive possessive pronoun. 

He gives a 'sermon' of sorts, though he does not condemn racial slurs, but only does not approve of its use. 

He feels the need to defend himself by his background, yet indicates that there is something else, perhaps, in someone else's household.  

The subject was accused of writing the racial insult on the check from Red Lobster.  He wrote a letter in which he was unwilling or unable to say "I didn't write it."

Therefore, I am not permitted to say it for him. 


Mimi said...

Regardless of your analysis, I do not believe he wrote the word "nigga" on the bill. I believe the waitress wrote it as part of the scheme she concocted in order to get the thousands of dollars she now has due to that donation website. I feel sorry for him and I think she needs to be charged w a crime

GetThem said...

Good job. It does seem he is feeling some guilt. It would be great to ask him more questions about his wife's participation. It's funny too that he says: WE called MY pastor. He doesn't say what his pastor's advice was. If I felt the need to go to my pastor, I would share the results in this context. Either he/she/they didn't agree with his pastor or he/she/they didn't like the advice and outcome from his pastor. He feels the need to say his pastor is also an attorney and yet still doesn't feel the need to discuss their conversation. Fishy.

ME said...

I think his wife wrote it.

Shelley said...

I can not imagine that someone would think that having a racial slur left on a receipt woudl be a money maker.

But you never know.

But I think that SA is clear in this case.

I know if someone accused me, I would state "I DID NOT write that!"

I would be very clear about what I did not do.

This guy writes all this and never said "I did not write it"

My friends husband was not raised to be a cheater but then cheated on her.

I was not raised to ditch school, but I did ditch a couple times.

We all do things bad that we were not "raised" to do.

So he can write all those extra things, but what he never does is directly respond to the accusation and deny it.

SA aside, I used to refer to that as "fluff". Lots of pretty words, a note to calling his Pastor (his way of telling us he goes to church to give the illusion of being good) and that he does not approve of that... but still does not say that he did not do it.

Anonymous said...

just reading her statement led me to think that she wrote it, but his statement - is indeed not a reliable denial. clearly they both wrote it.


Shelley said...

I just had a thought.... SA aside....

I know people that have friends of all races. And in public, around others, appear very much open to all races.

Yet, if mad or pissed, if the person is black for example, they will say "Fu#$$#$ Ni----".

Or if mad at a female she was a "f#E@#$# Bi---"

I have also hear the term used "Fu@#$$$ wetback".

So I wonder, maybe the waitress was rude or short when they all the sudden changed from eating there to needing it to go...... Lets be honest, some waiters and waitresses can be rude and short.

So maybe they were just pissed and so the comment was left in anger. In the heat of the moment.

But may not be what they would say on a regular basis. Like they would not just say call someone a "nig---" that just passed and said hello.

But this was said just in anger or frustration.

REK said...

shelley- i anticipate something similar of the sort happened. for whatever reason i keep getting this scene playing out in my head. the couple comes to eat. has a long wait time.. is waiting for their food for quite some time..sees waitress tending to other tables and not to them.. they then decide they are fed up and want to order their food to go... waitress offers them dessert because she knows they are upset.. possibly both parties are upset at this point

Sus said...

Thank you for this analysis. I've been watching for it, and I agree. He had plenty of chances to deny he wrote it. He instead dances all around a simple denial.

I've also been thinking about why he signed "none" IN the tip line and his name ON the signature line. Couldn't IN be considered a COVER and he was subconsciously thinking ahead to cover the n-word? Just a thought.

REK said...

Besides the lack of denial..the most telling statement for me was how he could not identify with the waitress..stating he had friends of "mixed race". reminds me of jose baez in way.. trying to make a point but offers up something that sounds excusable but at careful examination avoids the point he's trying to make

REK said...

Sus.. I agree its strange but what i'm gathering is this.. when it comes to signatures we have a conceived idea of what is expected to be written there. "sign ON the dotted line".
when it comes to tips.. its at someones discretion to fill it out.. "enter in a number..." since you are makign a decision at this point you are "entering it in"

is my take on it

Sus said...

I see your point, REK. He probably saw it is writing IN the tip.

Off SA, and maybe because he's young, but I find it funny he didn't total his bill and, I guess take a copy of his own receipt. Otherwise wouldn't he be showing us that copy?

Anonymous said...

who doesn't write the total on their reciept before signing it? does anybody do tht??? leaves you much more open than not filling in the tip line

Tania Cadogan said...

When he called his pastor was it to seek pastoral help or was it to seek legal help as he also 'happened' to be an attorney?

Order is important he places pastor before attorney which indicates distance between the roles.
Is he using the role of pastor to minimise the fact he went to an attorney and got legal advice?

How did he learn his pastor was also an attorney?

Who would he have contacted if his pastor had not also been an attorney?

He introduces the role of attorney in his free speech making it sensitive.
He doesn't say what the pastor advised him nor the attorney.
He doesn't tell us what he asked the pastor/attorney

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Great Analysis, loads of little gems within the analysis to learn from.

He can wrap it up with ribbons and bows, but when you strip it bare there is no reliable denial.

Anonymous said...

O/T Maddie and some links i have found.these may interest HobNob and John (Im "ME" but i cant sign in)

And 3.

Anonymous said...

He was too defensive. He also had too many reasons why he would never do something like that and felt the need to explain. He wrote it.

Anonymous said...

I know, right! The wife, too. It was a threesome ;)

Anonymous said...

pastor and attorney??? impossible

Anonymous said...

No, it is not impossible for a pastor to also have a law degree and to have passed the bar exam. Many people have several degrees of various types. Besides, why would anyone make this up when it can easily be verified? And who cares anyhow what his pastor/attorney advised him to do or if he advised him to do anything at all.

MY conclusion. The guy did not write the N word on the receipt even if he didn't make what you all consider a 'reliable denial'.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Take another look at his face in the photo. It is the look of pure shock at being accused of doing such a thing. He does not yet realize what a cruel world we live in.

Anonymous said...

Even if he DID do it,so what??? She probably spits in people's meals,she looks that type of "human".

Anonymous said...

Good point, Anon @ 7:48!

Redneck said...

He or his wife wrote it. I'm convinced by Statement analysis.

Skeptical said...

Can SA take into account the insidious effect "political correctness" has had on our language? I find that many people hedge their bets in conversation today. It's as if they are afraid to state anything with assurance. No longer is their "yes" yes and their "no" no. Nothing is black or white right or wrong any more. Everything is shades of gray. That's the way I read the letter. It is a denial written in "political correctness" format. He is trying to please all sides - the people who believe him and the people who don't. I can't blame him. Look at what happened. The woman received $10,000 unearned money and he was subjected to abuse.

shmi said...

After reading the analysis, I feel that I was wrong. I thought maybe she got someone to write the "n" word on the receipt. I have changed my mind. I did note that he didn't deny it, but thought she was too quick to accept the apology. I noted the free dessert, and the offering of it after he told her he need the food to go.

His letter, after analysis, does not say the expected of an accused person. I'll have to remember to look for expected words and language.

Buckley said...

Great analysis! I learned a lot.

"Kaaryn Gough did a wonderful job in demonstrating this in the Baby Lisa case...

Kaaryn wrote that we should look for words that accompany a kidnapping...simple words such as "kidnapping, ransom, contact..." and so on."

I saw where Gough did this word analysis with Isabel Celis but in searching can't find her analysis of Bradley. I love to read anything of hers. Anybody know where it is?

Anonymous said...

I would do some serious investigating into whether the waitress and customer knew each other. This could be a collaborative set up for money. That would explain the unusual results of both their statements analysis.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Skeptical said...

Can SA take into account the insidious effect "political correctness" has had on our language? I find that many people hedge their bets in conversation today. It's as if they are afraid to state anything with assurance. No longer is their "yes" yes and their "no" no. Nothing is black or white right or wrong any more. Everything is shades of gray. That's the way I read the letter. It is a denial written in "political correctness" format. He is trying to please all sides - the people who believe him and the people who don't. I can't blame him. Look at what happened. The woman received $10,000 unearned money and he was subjected to abuse.

Hi Skeptical, as peter says, words don't come from a vacuum. Its takes a millie second or less for the brain to send the words to speak. That is unless we are rehearsing from a script..Even then, sometimes the brain leaks marbles as Kaaryn Gough says..This is why Imo that the Freudian slip should not be ignored.

Anonymous said...

imo, any "political correctness" is a lie.
imo, political correctness was designed or invented to cover your true self. but if you have nothing to hide, why be politically correct?

"I was not raised that way in my household."
"I do not approve of that kind of talk, not now or ever!!!"

did he act differently outside the home?
is the one "n" word considered a "kind of talk"? and/or "raised that way"?
he did not say, "i do not approve of the use of the "n" word."
sounds like he is trying to deny being racist instead of denying he wrote the word on the ticket. was he accused of being a racist or accused of writing the "n" word?

"I signed "none" in the tip line and my name on the signature line and left my ticket on the table."

he SIGNED the word "none"?
he did not address the line in question.
he does not say he left the line for the "n" word blank.

REK said...

anonymous 1:31.. this is exactly where you would expect him to deny signing the "n" word...yet it is missing..

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:31, you are just trying to mince and split words. The guy is telling you loud and clear that he wrote none for the tip and signed his name below. That, my dear, is all there is to his story!

Anonymous said...

Why write "none?" Wouldn't a line through the space suffice? Or, at least...a big fat 0 with a line!

I can imagine the hurt felt by the waitress;however, most don't tip on take-out.

So, why the BS?

sidewalk super said...

This case was discussed on FOX last night and the consensus was that the waitress wrote the slur. They did reference handwriting experts.

And I agree with all of you who are saying "political correctness" is leading to lying, lies, more lying.
Thanks jessee,
thanks to our current president,
thanks ralph...

Anonymous said...

After re-reading, I have a different take on the situation.
"I want to start out...." (Perhaps he is mind-mapping and searching for words to write a letter because he doesn't typically do letter writing responses to media driven accusations.

"We call MY pastor..." We meaning his wife made the call; My pastor meaning he was the go-to guy in the situation.

His first call should have been to a lawyer since it is clear this went viral and may have ill intent. Calling a pastor is secondary since he is one and the same as the lawyer.

Giving a sermon of sorts?

I find that should I put it?...ironic? Peter, you usually quote scripture in convincing others of the righteousness of your words-though often condemning and aimed at innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Christians should start an algorithm program so they can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff. If someone doesn't form a sentence properly, just throw them in the lion's den! Yum, yum!

Anonymous said...

I don't believe he wrote it. I believe she did. I agree with skeptical that is letter was written from a place of political correctness. The waitress's statements are just as sketchy as his and science backs his position.

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely ironic that a sudden influx of "anonymous" comments seemingly attributing root behaviors and innocence based on race (discounting statement analysis) would have a remark of "EVIL chimpess" among them...

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting you assume my above comment about believing she wrote the slur was based on raced. My assertion was not made in spite of statement analysis. It was made because of both SA and the hand writting expert. To assume my comment was race driven, you also had to assume you knew what race I am. That is a lot of assuming. Just saying.

Lisa said...

Happens all the time. "Perpetrator" and "victim" collude to commit fraud.
I bet he is getting a piece of the cash she raked in.
Statement analysis shows both are liars. Its a set up.

rob said...

I believe they had a bad encounter,and were both PO'ed. She offered him the dessert to try and make it better, he refused it, got his food, made his statement by no tip and left. The waitress may have been concerned he would call back and complain about her, so she did a quick CMA.
I still say, both should take a poly, and resolve this once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Stfu u evil RACIST.

REK said...

where are the abundant statements by the waitress indicating guilty knowledge?

Anonymous said...

Sheeeesh...! I never. These two (waitress & customer) didn't collaborate to split any proceeds of monies that 'might' come in as a result of any conspiracy between them!

Nor did the waitress offer them a 'free' desert. Waitresses at Red Lobster (and most other restaurants) offer their customers a desert, whether to go or to eat with their meal while seated, but you can bet your bippy it goes on the check.

Some just can't get over it that nothing happened here other than just what the customer said occurred. The guy is young, foolish, naïve, doesn't speak (or write) proper English as we know it and has not been coached on what to say or how to say it.

Accept it, he knows he (or his wife) did not write the N word on the check; the expression on his face tells the story of his utter shock. Get over it.

Jane said...

Perhaps he could prove his innocence by producing his copy of the receipt with nothing written on the line in question.

sherlock said...

It worries me how many people think his copy of the receipt would "prove his innocence." Guilty or innocent, who knows.... But many restaurant credit card reciepts are not carbon copies, but 2 separate pieces of paper. Even if this receipt was carbon copy-style, one could easily remove the back copy before writing on the front copy!!!!! His copy of the receipt would prove nothing one way or the other, get it????

Anonymous said...

The expression on the little weasel's face says "I got caught."

Anonymous said...

That is Patsy Ramsey's handwriting.

Anonymous said...

It's a total giveaway that it wasn't just him that wrote it--the part where he says "a small foreign faction" might be responsible for taking his slip and writing the n-word--this is what convinces me he is lying completely.

rob said...

Wait a minute, they never even ate their food, they got it boxed to go, yet the waitress says she offered them a dessert?

Anonymous said...

Rob, what would be so unusual about the waitress offering them a desert (to go) with their meal? Haven't you ever eaten at Red Lobster or ordered food to go from Red Lobster?

Well, I have, both to go and seated. Many times, and I have never NOT been asked if I would like a desert. This is customary with good service at Red Lobster and is their way of promoting sales of their deserts. And it's not free!

Anonymous said...

By the way, does anyone know if there as been a status up date on this situation between the customer, the waitress and Red Lobsters' position?

rob said...

I HAVE been offered a free dessert, when something went wrong during a meal. Also given free food or a coupon for a free appitizer. Sometimes your order gets lost, and and hour later, the server realizes it, or whatever.
One time at Outback, when the server set my husbands plate down, he reached in and pulled out a piece of gray plastic and looked at the server. The server about died, and said, I'll bring you some new food, hubby said, don't worry about it, but you might want to check it out.The server was dying because my hubby ate the food. He told him please, let it go man. No, he comes back with the manager, and our dinner was free and they brought us an dessert sampler on the house.
My point is, restaurants do try to compensate you, when you have a bad experience, with free food.
And to beat it all, we really are not the type to complain, stuff just happens sometimes and the server or mgr notices it.

Anonymous said...

I suspect YOUR HUSBAND put the"plastic"in the"never"is a weak denial.

food server said...

I agree,he probably feeds""freestyle""with his bits of plastic"scam".

Anonymous said...

What this tells me about you and your husband Rob, is that your husband is a VERY dishonest man and you go along with it.

Conning a free meal, an appetizer or a desert is NOT an admirable trait.

What I wonder is what are you doing here on SA where honesty is supposedly so highly valued?

Anonymous said...

Bottom Line: If he ATE the food, then he owed for it.

Simple as that.

food server said...

These"critisising"you are FAILURES.IStarted the"attack"on your honesty as a lighthearted joke.sorry it escalated.

Anonymous said...

Your very stupid.

Anonymous said...

"Your" very stupid?

So are you.

Your = you're

anti bore said...

"You .you're"?No "."at the end?you're pathetic.Go away and victimise another poster.STUPID!.

Anonymous said...

^^^ well said.bores Bore us all :)
thought it was clever.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"Your husband Rob"="your husband"Rob"."Dick head.

Anonymous said...

Grow up fatty.

rob said...

I can't believe I'm still responding to this. But, the server had just sit the plate on the table and had not even stepped away, when he pulled out the plastic. It was about 2 inches long, 1/3 in wide,slightly curved. It looked like the rim of a bowl or bucket. The server never questioned it, because it was never out of his sight.
We tried to tell him, it was no problem, he persued it, not us.
I can afford to pay for my dinner, and don't go out faking something in order to get something free.
My point in saying it was, sometimes the restaurant does comp something, to keep the customer happy.

Anonymous said...

If I "carried"pieces of"plastic"around all day,in the hope of a "free meal"I'd rather EAT THE PLASTIC!!!!!!! SHAME on you Canadians.

Anonymous said...

WHO pulled the piece of plastic out of the food, the server or your husband. This is the thing you have never made clear, Rob.

Rob said...


Rob said...

My husband yould put you in our meal sicko!!! LEAVE me alone Canadian shrimp.