Friday, March 27, 2015

Statement Analysis: David Ortiz on Steroids

Ortiz Testing PullThe following is attributed to David Ortiz, and it is written regarding steroid use.  We analyze the statement, only, not the person.  Should we learn later, he did not write it, it was ghost written, it was written by him with help, or that he wrote it, would not change the fact that we view the statement; the words chosen.  

Regarding steroids, we look for a simple denial, which in the world of Statement Analysis, is called a "Reliable Denial.  It consists of three components.  If four are present, it is not reliable.  If two are present, it is not reliable.  A reliable denial consists of a most simple formula; something so simple, in fact, that people often miss it. 

In this simple formula we have the pronoun "I", the past tense "did not" (or "didn't") and the allegation addressed ("steroids" or "PEDs").  The truly innocent (not only those who are judicially innocent) simply make a reliable denial.  

The guilty, or deceptive sound differently than the truly innocent.  The guilty will:

a.  Issue Unreliable Denials
b.  Point to the number of times they were not caught

a.  Unreliable Denials consists of such statements like:

"I never used steroids", which, by itself, is not reliable.  The word "never" cannot be substituted for "did not."  If one says, "I did not use steroids" it is not necessary to use "never", in which a non-descrit amount of time is addressed.  For years, Lance Armstrong was unable or unwilling to say "I did not use PEDs" but he was able, quite often, to say "I never used..."

Principle:  "never" is not to be a substitute for "did not" in Statement Analysis.

"I would never use PEDs" with the word, "would", which avoids the past tense verb.  

"Why would I take PEDs?" is to issue a question, in hopes of moving away form the topic, yet it still avoids the simple reliable denial formula that those who did not "do it" are able to say.  

Since more than 90% of deception comes from missing or withheld information, we can now see, from these words, if the writer of these words will issue a reliable denial.  


b.  The number of times they were not caught. 

Marion Jones boasted that she was the most tested Olympian athlete.  This is what it is:  a boasting of the number of times one has not been caught and it is a technique of avoidance of a reliable denial. 

Think of someone in high school who is caught cheating on an exam. 

Would a legitimate defense be how many times they took a test without cheating?

How about a bank robbery at an ATM?

imagine the defense:  "I have withdrawn money from this ATM each Friday night, 52 times a year, for the last 10 years, meaning that I have withdrawn money from this ATM more than 500 times without robbing!  Why would I rob now?  I would never rob from this ATM!"

This sounds persuasive to the untrained ear, but it avoids the simple:  "I did not rob this ATM" as alleged. 

c.  The number of words used instead of a Reliable Denial indicates the weakness of the need to persuade.  One can talk on and on and on, yet avoid saying, "I didn't do it."  This was Michael Jackson's method of deception.  Instead of saying, "I did not molest a little boy", he not only avoided using this simple sentence instead opting to talk about how much he loved little boys and how he loved little boys in Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, and in California, and how he shared his bed with them.  

This not only avoids saying he didn't do it, but tells us that he had a lot more victims than the few in California who he paid millions of dollars to be silent. 

He is still hailed as a "hero" in some circles, today.  

What shall we find from this article attributed to David Ortiz, the slugger of the Boston Red Sox?

Will he simply write, "I did not use steroids"? or will he have a much longer story to tell?

Statement Analysis is in bold type, with emphasis added to specific words in the article.  This is from the Players' Tribune.  

Assuming David Ortiz wrote the article, the question is:

Did David Ortiz use steroids?

Let's let the subject guide us in our conclusions.  This statement is 2,332 words in length.  The reliable denial of "I didn't use PEDs" is 4 to 5 words in length.  

The Dirt

I was ready to shoot somebody, man. Literally. I was sleeping at my house in the Dominican this winter when I heard a banging on my front door at 7:30 in the morning. Now, I got security. My kids and family are sleeping in the house. I wasn’t expecting anyone. Who in the hell is banging on my door? I come down the stairs yelling like, “Who the f*** is there?”
I look on the security camera by the door and it’s two American guys holding briefcases. I could tell by the way they looked what was in the briefcases. Pee cups and big needles.
MLB sent them down on a little vacation to my island. What a job.
So I open the door.
“Sorry for the interruption, but we need to take some samples.”
I’m looking at these guys like, “7:30 in the morning? Really, bro?”
So the guys come in with their equipment and start taking my blood in the kitchen. My kids are so used to this by now that they’re laughing and taking pictures. This is nothing new. The one guy is sticking me with the needle while the other one is shooting the shit with me, telling me he’s from Colorado.
“Warm down here!” he says.
“I didn’t know you guys were coming,” I say. “You gotta be more careful. This is the Dominican, bro.”
“We’re just doing our job,” he says.
“Let me tell you something,” I say. “The only thing you’re going to find in my blood is rice and beans.”

In some people’s minds, I will always be considered a cheater. And that’s bullshit. Mark my words: 

Here is the perfect place for him to write, "I'm not a cheater.  I didn't use PEDs."  He has introduced the topic with the statement, "Mark my words", which calls for emphasis, weakening what is about to be said:

Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me. 

This statement avoids the simple, "I didn't use steroids", which might have ended the story, as there is nothing more to discuss.  We do not need to know if he was tested, or how many times he was tested, or how many times he passed a test.  Lance Armstrong had a way of swapping urine and saving his own blood.  We simply listen for, "I didn't use steroids" or "I didn't use PEDs" and be done with it.  This is additional information that, in Statement Analysis, shows not only avoidance of the Reliable Denial (RD) but a need to persuade, and a need to change the topic of discussion.  


You know how many times I’ve been tested since 2004? 

This is a question in an open statement.  

More than 80.

He does not know the precise answer?

 They say these tests are random. If it’s really random, I should start playing the damn lottery. Some people still think the testing is a joke. It’s no joke. Ten times a season these guys come into the clubhouse or my home with their briefcases. I have never failed a single one of those tests and I never will.

This sounds like a powerful denial but it is not.  A reliable denial is powerful in its truthful content:

"I did not take steroids" or "I did not use PEDs."  This statement avoids saying it. 

But that doesn’t matter to some people. Some people still look at me like I’m a cheater because my name was on a list of players who got flagged for PEDs in 2003. 

We note that within his own words may be an embedded admission:  "I'm a cheater."

We now also have a specific time frame in mind:  "2003."  This is important because it allows him to say:

"My name was on a list of players who got flagged for PEDs in 2003.  But I did not use PEDs.  I am not a cheater. "


Let me tell you something about that test. 

"Let me tell you" is similar to "Mark my words" and is often used, statistically, by deceptive people who now wish to be believed.  It is similar to "swear to God" and other oaths.  

Note the word "that" is distancing language.  This may be appropriate if he is thinking of the date of the test.  If he is, however, psychologically distancing himself from the test, we may see this if the topic of the test's result is the focus of the sentence:  

Most guys were taking over-the-counter supplements then. Most guys are still taking over-the-counter supplements. 

Note that he introduces "most guys", which does not specifically mention himself.  Remember the three components of a reliable denial?

I.  The Pronoun "I" is the easiest word for us to use.  We use it millions of times in our lives.
II.  The past tense "did not" or even the relaxed "didn't" with the contraction.
III.  The specific allegation:  "PEDs"

Here, we have the avoidance of the easy pronoun "I", and we have a specific time frame mentioned:  "then", which, in context, is 2003. 

But, we then have "most guys" repeated, making "most guys" sensitive to him, and the time frame is the present tense . 

Go back to the word "that" and consider:  was "that" distancing language due to the passage of time since it was 2003?  Or, is he in the present tense, and the distancing language is due to something else, like the test result?

It is here he can say, "I didn't use, therefore, I passed the test"

If one did not use, one will not allow for the possibility of  a failed test. 


If it’s legal, ballplayers take it. 

Note the introduction of "legal" in his language, where he was not able to say "I am not a cheater", but embedded, "I'm a cheater" in his own language.  

Why? Because if you make it to the World Series, you play 180 games. Really think about that for a second. 180 games.

"Really think" is another example where the subject calls the attention of the audience (reader) for the need to persuade. 
Next, note the order for why "most guys" would use "over the counter supplements" then (in 2003) and the "most guys" still:  


 Your kids could be sick, your wife could be yelling at you, your dad could be dying — nobody cares. Nobody cares if you have a bone bruise in your wrist or if you have a pulled groin. You’re an entertainer. The people want to see you hit a 95-mile-an-hour fastball over a damn 37-foot wall.

Here are the reasons that "most guys" took over the counter supplements in 2003 and why "most guys" take over the counter supplements today, according to the writer:

1.  sick kids
2.  wife yelling at you
3.  dad dying 
4.  no one caring
5.  bone bruise in your wrist
6.  "you" have a pulled groin 
7.  "You" are an entertainer
8.  The "people" are blamed:  they want to see "you" hit a 95 mph fastball over a damn 37 foot wall. 

If "most guys" took over the counter supplements in 2003, it was not their fault ,but the reasons above. 
If "most guys" take them today, it is not their fault, it is the reason listed above, including the fans, by who's money pays "most guys" salaries. 

This is not to use the pronoun "I" and say that this is what the subject did. 

Most MLB players take a dozen pills a day just to get them through the season — multivitamins, creatine, amino acids, nitric oxide, all kinds of stuff. Whatever you tell them is legal, they’ll take it.

"Most guys" take over the counter supplements. 
Here we have a change of language.  Here it is "most MLB players" take a dozen pills a day.  
When language changes, there should be a reason for it to change, as it represents a change in reality.  If there is no justification for the change, it may be that we are looking at deception in the language.  

In the list he then gives, many ingredients of over the counter supplements are noted.  The context appears similar, that is, if the "dozen pills" are creatine, amino acids, and so on; that is, over the counter supplements. 

There does not appear to be a change in reality in the change of language.  


But back in the early 2000s, 

The word "but" refutes (or minimizes) the information that preceded it, in comparison to what is about to follow.  Does he wish to refute his own claim?

Do "most guys" or "most MLB players" do something different, now?  We are not made to wait long to see:  


you’d go into GNC and the guy working there would say, “Hey, take this stuff. It’s great. It builds muscle, helps with soreness, burns fat, whatever.”

Here, it is not that "most guys" nor "most MLB players" would go into GNC, but "you" would.  This is distancing language.  

Okay, sure, I’ll take that. I’m buying an over-the-f***ing-counter supplement in the United States of America. I’m buying this stuff in line next to doctors and lawyers. Now all of a sudden MLB comes out and says there’s some ingredient in GNC pills that have a form of steroid in them. I don’t know anything about it.

Note the present tense language. 
Note the location of specific purchases being the United States of America. 
Please note that it is commonly reported that the purchase of testosterone in Mexico, Central America and South America is often over the counter, and in some places, sold openly, while at others, sold "under the counter" but readily sold.  

If you think I’m full of it, go to your kitchen cabinet right now and read the back of a supplement bottle and honestly tell me you know what all of that stuff is. I’m not driving across the border to Mexico buying some shady pills from a drug dealer. I’m in a strip mall across from the Dunkin’ Donuts, bro.
In 2003, MLB wanted to measure what players were taking and figure out some kind of standard. 

Please note that MLB was testing specifically for illegal substances:  Principally the muscle building steroids such as testosterone, as well as the use of human growth hormone.  The other things tested for were masking agents, as well as "balancing" drugs which were taken in attempts to offset the side effects of the steroids and  hormones.  For example, massive amounts of HGH (human growth hormones) were needed for muscle building, but this could put the athlete into risk of diabetic shock.  In small amounts, HGH helped athletes heal faster, sleep better, and slow down the aging process.  
Testosterone, in large amounts, converts to estrogen, which causes unhealthy reactions in men, including the development of breasts, so anti-estrogen (cancer) medications were used.  

MLB was looking for cheaters who used drugs to artificially build muscle and recover from injuries faster, which not only gave them advantages over non-users, but risked the players' lives. 

With the commonly known ability to purchase steroids south of the United States border, athletes could use for years, during development, stop using them, test clean, and have a distinct advantage over American players who built muscle without drugs.  

The muscle gained with steroids does not simply "go away" when the steroids are stopped.  Slight loss only is expected if the athlete continues to lift weights.  Some liars will talk about lifting weights and other accomplishments during times they were "clean" from using, as if this proved something.  It does not.  Well, it does actually:  it proves the need to continue to employ words (lots of them) while avoiding the simple reliable denial of "I didn't use PEDs" in any simple form.  

Another danger:  While getting bigger, not only is "roid rage" a side effect, but with the increase of appetite can come unwanted weight gain, so the athlete goes into the "shredding" stage where he takes off body fat.  This too, employs dangerous drugs that can lead to heart attack and strokes. 

It was not just cheating that MLB sought, but protection of health.  

Next note what every mother of a teenager knows:  guilt seeks friends. 

The pronoun "we" puts him in with others and seeks to spread out guilt:  

We all got tested and MLB sealed the results. The next year, they said, “Okay, you can’t take any pills with this, this and this,” — all kinds of stuff that was previously in supplements that anybody could buy. They used our tests to figure out what should be considered a performance-enhancer. Okay. Fine. Great. Clean it up. I love it. Shit, if you catch someone taking PEDs now that we all know the rules and have been educated about what’s in these supplements, forget 25, 50 games. Suspend them for an entire year. 

I don’t care, because I’m not doing it.

Note that rather than issue a RD, he not only avoids saying it, but he goes to the present tense, "I'm not doing it", which we can believe that at the time this was written, he was not taking PEDs.  
We can believe this, and we can believe the test results, both the one distanced from in 2003, and the other 80 plus tests that came after that, of which he speaks of.  

The next couple seasons, I start noticing things changing. Guys are a lot more conscious about what they’re putting in their body. But I’m getting tested 10 times a season and I’m still in the gym benching 400 pounds. 

I’m out there in 2006 hitting 54 home runs. Nobody wants to talk about that though. They’re on me for my flair now. “Papi, how come you walk around the bases so slow when you hit a home run? How come you flip your bat like that? Don’t you think that’s disrespectful to celebrate?”
Yeah, I’m gonna have fun. It’s who I am. I just hit a baseball 500 damn feet. I grew up in the gutter and now I’m out here in front of the world living my dream and you all want me to feel sad? I can’t do it. I’m here to bring joy to this game.

Analysis conclusion follows this lengthy article.  

People ask me all the time how I turned into such a monster in my early 30s. “How are you doing this? You must be cheating.” You know how? Physically, I was always a bull. But I learned to play the game with my head and my heart and my balls. I got smarter. I got mentally tougher. I used to have a trick every time we went into Yankee Stadium, especially in the playoffs. I’d walk out to the on-deck circle and look into the crowd and pick out the craziest guys there. I’d find the ones that were screaming all kinds of stuff at me, and I’d look them right in the eyes. It was like a game — see who blinks first. Then I’d turn to my dugout and say, “Hey, watch this. I’m gonna hit this one to the choo-choo train.”
One night I hit a home run and when I was rounding third base I found these two guys in the stands who had been screaming at me. And they were literally fighting. The one guy was yelling, “Why the f*** did you piss him off, man?”
Boston Red Sox v New York Yankees
I became a great hitter because of my mental preparation. This is a thinking man’s game. You can be the strongest dude alive and you’re not going to be able to hit a sinker with 40,000 people screaming at you. That’s what really makes me mad when I think about the way I will be remembered. They’re only going to remember my power. They’re not going to remember the hours and hours and hours of work in the film room. They’re not going to remember the BP. They’re not going to remember me for my intelligence. Despite all I’ve done in this game, I’m just the big DH from the Dominican. They turn you into a character, man.
You think I’m joking?

He continues to use a multitude of words and in the case of the Reliable Denial missing, it only adds to the deception.  The number of words he needs to persuade, versus the 4 or 5 words needed to deny steroid use will be seen in the end result.  

Is he persuading readers that he did not take steroids, while refusing to simply say he did not take steroids?
Or, is he revealing something about his own personality, instead?


In 2013, I came off the DL and started hot. My first 20 games I was hitting like .400. And the reporter with the red jheri curl from The Boston Globecomes into the locker room says, “You’re from the Dominican. You’re older. You fit the profile of a steroid user. Don’t you think you’re a prime suspect?”

Here is yet another place where he can say he did not use steroids.  

He has set up multiple scenarios in which the call for denial is given. 

Each place where he sets up the scenario for a response, he avoids denying taking steroids or PEDs.

He’s saying this with a straight face. I had taken like 70 at-bats. Anybody can get hot and hit .400 with 70 at-bats. I was stunned. I’m like, I’m Dominican? I fit the profile? Are you kidding me?

Please note "Dominican" and the number of drug traffickers who go there to purchase and re-sell steroids to gyms is known in law enforcement. 

Is this the "race card" being played?  If so, it is another tangent, which shows, in language, the need to take the topic in a different route other than a denial.  

The profile of a steroid user is one who:

a.  has the means to obtain steroids.  The means is not only money, but geography.  
b.  has a body that changes
c.  has his career extended beyond the norm.  


I wanted to kill this guy. But you can’t react. That’s what they want. They want you to get angry so they can bury you. So I just smiled at him and asked for his address.
“Why do you want my address?” he said.
“Because I just got tested two days ago.” I said. “I’ll mail you the f****ing results.”

He will mail the results but not say "I didn't use"

This is a reporter from my own city coming to my locker and telling me I’m too good, that I must be on some shit. I’m sitting there thinking, Man, I get tested 10 times a year and I’ve helped win this town two World Series titles in 2004 and 2007 and this guy who has never played a game of professional baseball in his life is telling me I’m a suspect.
My test was clean just like the other 8 or 9 tests that season. My batting average settled down to .300, because of course it did. I hit like 30 home runs and we won the World Series. Was that acceptable for the reporter? Were my numbers too high for a player from the Dominican? Should I have taken another blood test before popping the damn champagne?
He never apologized.
Ortiz Steroids Pull Short
I get asked all the time: “Do you think you’ll be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Do you think it’s fair for you to be included after your name was on that list in 2003?”

Let me tell you about fair. I grew up in a neighborhood where there was a shooting every day. Every single day. I didn’t know if I was going to step outside to go play at the park with a f***ing tape ball and a stick and get shot. I saw people get killed right in front of me. I grew up in a house where my father used to hit my mother. There was a fight in my house pretty much every other day. It was normal. I grew up in a house that didn’t have the luxury of proper nutrition or vitamins. A protein shake? Are you kidding me? The only protein I knew about until I was 16 was frijoles negros. Black beans.

These reporters always want to talk about fair. The world ain’t fair.
I’ll never forget coming into the clubhouse before a day game against Oakland in 2009 when a reporter came up to me and said, “Hey, you know your name is about to be on a list of steroid users on ESPN?”
I literally said, “Ha!” and walked away. God’s honest truth: I thought he was messing with me.

Here we have the principle in statement analysis of "deity" in which is commonly used by habitual liars. 


About 30 minutes later, I’m getting dressed when I see my face pop up on the TV. I see “Failed Test. 2003.” 

Here is where he can say "I didn't fail the test in 2003", instead, he uses another (clever) tactic:

diversion: 


No one had ever told me I’d failed any test.

The test result is not addressed, but the lack of information given to him is.  This is to blame the testers while avoiding saying "I didn't fail.'"

Next, note "I'm dirty" in his language, where he sources "some documents" as "saying" this.  This is not to enter the language of another, but to embed:
"I'm dirty"

 Now six years later some documents get leaked and they’re saying I’m dirty. I called my agent and asked what was going on. He didn’t have any answers for me. I called the MLB Players’ Association and they didn’t have any answers for me. To this day, nobody has any answers for me. Nobody can tell me what I supposedly tested positive for. They say they legally can’t, because the tests were never supposed to be public.

Instead of saying "I didn't fail the test", he blames "nobody" for not telling him which drug they caught him taking.  

This writer is a liar from childhood.  


Let me tell you something. Say whatever you want about me — love me, hate me. But I’m no bullshitter. I never knowingly took any steroids. If I tested positive for anything, it was for something in pills I bought at the damn mall. If you think that ruins everything I have done in this game, there is nothing I can say to convince you different.

Deception indicated.  


After I saw my face on ESPN, I felt a lot of darkness. I felt a lot of anger. I knew what was coming. But I went out there that day and when I stepped up to the plate, I just thought, Papi, look at where you are. Look at where you came from. Nobody’s shooting at you. Nobody’s trying to kill you. They pay you to play a kid’s game.
When I’m at the plate, I really feel like I’m in heaven.
I hit the game-winning home run into the bleachers at Fenway that day. That was it, man. That was my closure.

This is instead of saying, "Papi, you didn't use steroids, don't worry..."
david ortiz red sox
When I got to the clubhouse, it was crazy. Reporters were everywhere. Nobody asked about the homer. Nobody asked how many times I’ve been tested since 2003. Since that day, I have been asked the same question a million times: Do you think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

Hell yes I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Would he say, "I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I didn't use steroids"?

He gives a different reason instead of not using steroids, since steroid use is what has kept Barry Bonds out:  

 I’ve won three World Series since MLB introduced comprehensive drug testing. I’ve performed year after year after year. But if a bunch of writers who have never swung a bat want to tell me it’s all for nothing, OK. Why do they write my legacy?

Note narcissistic lying patterns.  Note the abundance of words used rather than the 4 or 5 needed to issue a denial.  

Let me tell you what I really care about. 

In context, it should now read about the 3 world series victories after drug testing.  Instead he shows what he "really" cares about:  


When we played in Texas a few days later after the news came out, people were screaming, “Cheater, cheater, cheater!” It was really vicious.

Here he can say, "I am not a cheater.  I didn't use PEDs."


My family was sitting right there in the stands. After the game, my son came up to me in the hotel with tears in his eyes and he says, “Dad, why are they calling you a cheater? Are you a cheater?”

Here is yet another time to say "Son, I did not cheater.  I didn't use steroids."

The race card has been played;
the homer card (home fans) has been played;
now father hood is another emotional topic employed in the place of denying steroid use.  This is to show the personality of the writer, highly persuasive, highly narcissistic, and very deceptive.  

As a father, that’s a moment you’re never prepared for. I looked at him in the eye and said, “No, I’m not a cheater.”
In 75 years, when I’m dead and gone, I won’t care if I’m in the Hall of Fame. I won’t care if a bunch of baseball writers know the truth about who I am in my soul and what I have done in this game. I care that my children know the truth.

Here he can tell us the truth and say, "I didn't use", but in each and every scenario he brought up, skillfully employing diversionary and emotional scenarios, he could not say the simplest of words.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The subject used 2332 words.  The reliable denial is 4, or 5 at the most, which would come out to less than 1% in total, or

.00214 % 

Here, we find that the actual percentage of words used to reliably deny using steroids or PEDs to be 0%

The subject is deceptive. 

The subject is unwilling or unable to say that he did not use steroids; therefore, we are not permitted to say it for him. 

He does, however, use more than 2,000 words to avoid saying "I didn't do it", showing not only an acute need to persuade, but a habit of speech common to habitual liars.  

Deception Indicated.

If David Ortiz wrote this, and English is his second language:  even if we step back from the nuances of language, his need to employ this extreme volume of words, combined with the attempts to employ emotionally laden language, and the avoidance of the RD still shows deception. 

In what may have intended to convince writers that he did not use, and should be voted into the Hall of Fame, may actually have the opposite effect, as writers see, in his own words, just how much success he has gained from cheating, and how distance he, himself is, from telling the truth.  

A word about figures of speech in which attention is called: 
There is an appropriate use of such terms, but in a statement where a denial is expected, or issued in an unreliable manner, specifically, indicates weakness and is the language of deception.  Many people refer to the finger wagging or pointing (Rafael Palmero, Bill Clinton), which are both good examples.  Yet, in any challenge, it is just that, a challenge. 

"let me tell you" and so on...

In the context of a denial, it is yet another method of emphasizing the lack of denial, highlighting the weakness.  Ortiz' use of it is extreme.  This shows childhood habit.  

14 comments:

john said...

Update:

Amanda Knox's Conviction Overturned by Italian Court

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-back-prison-roommates-death/story?id=29953368&cid=fb_abcn_sf

john said...

That was a great read, It goes to show the great lengths people will go to, to avoid a RD.

trustmeigetit said...

Amanda’s statement in response

"The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength"

Not your “innocence has given you strength” but the “knowledge of your innocence”

DONT TRUST A DRUGGIE GETIT! said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
john said...

Updates:

Family to mark Ayla Reynolds’ birthday quietly
Trista Reynolds, the mother of the toddler who disappeared from her father's Waterville home in 2011, said she is focusing on her growing sons.


http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/03/27/family-to-mark-ayla-reynolds-birthday-quietly/

.............................


Adoptive parents of Erica Parsons sentenced for tax fraud

www.wral.com/nc-parents-of-missing-teen-will-be-sentenced-for-tax-fraud/14542816/#E552lrcqq2jxdTld.99

jen dugena said...

When someone answers "No such thing" when asked if he collapsed/fainted, I' m guessing this is not a reliable denial.

Philippine president Noynoy Aquino gave this brief answer via a text message to a govt staff who asked if he collapsed. Noynoy's "No such thing" reply does not follow the rules for a reliable denial. His 'collapse' or not is sensitive given the inconsistent statements he has made with regards to the attack the govt made against Muslim fighters in Southern Philippines where 44 soldiers were killed in cold blood while trying to capture a Muslim terrorist. Some have alleged that the 44 soldiers were left to fend/fight on their own. The facts also show that there was no coordination between the heads of govt troops. There are rumors that this was because there was a US million dollar reward for teh capture of the Muslim terrorist & some govt heads want to keep the reward money. This is the reason why when the Muslim terrorist (Marwan) was indeed killed, his finger was immediately sent to FBI for DNA testing - allegedly.

jen dugena said...

When someone answers "No such thing" (http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/aquino-on-collapse-rumor-no-such-thing) when asked if he collapsed/fainted, I' m guessing this is not a reliable denial.

Philippine president Noynoy Aquino gave this brief answer via a text message to a govt staff who asked if he collapsed. Noynoy's "No such thing" reply does not follow the rules for a reliable denial. His 'collapse' or not is sensitive given the inconsistent statements he has made with regards to the attack the govt made against Muslim fighters in Southern Philippines where 44 soldiers were killed in cold blood while trying to capture a Muslim terrorist. Some have alleged that the 44 soldiers were left to fend/fight on their own. The facts also show that there was no coordination between the heads of govt troops. There are rumors that this was because there was a US million dollar reward for teh capture of the Muslim terrorist & some govt heads want to keep the reward money. This is the reason why when the Muslim terrorist (Marwan) was indeed killed, his finger was immediately sent to FBI for DNA testing - allegedly.

john said...

AJ Hadsell update:

Missing teen’s father to stay in jail

ORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — A judge has denied bond for the father of a Norfolk teenager who’s been missing for nearly a month.

Wesley Hadsell appeared in court Friday for a bond hearing on six felony charges. He was arrested March 23 for breaking and entering, possessing ammunition after a felony and four counts of obstructing justice.

Hadsell, 36, admitted to police he broke into the home of a person he suspects took his daughter in order to do investigating of his own. He told 10 On Your Side Thursday he prayed for bond so he would be able to return to searching for his missing daughter.

Anjelica “AJ” Hadsell, 18, has not been seen since March 2. It’s been 25 days of pain, her mother, Jennifer Hadsell, said. “We don’t have any answers. We don’t know,” she said.

Mr. Hadsell is disappointed with the judge’s decision, and said he feels like he has let his daughter down.

“I’m not asking for understanding. I’m not asking for forgiveness … I’m asking for faith from the judge … that I can go and be there for my family, my loved ones, for my daughter, her friends, and they can give me that respect,” Hadsell said from Norfolk City Jail before his bond hearing.

Anything said in the negative is sensitive.

"that I can go and be there for my family, my loved ones, for my daughter, her friends"

Order is important.

Hadsell’s four charges of obstructing justice, according to prosecutors, stem from four people who allegedly knew about the home break-in and felt threatened by Hadsell.

“I’ve never threatened anybody. So, I feel the courts would have a good disposition with that,” Hadsell said the day he was arrested.

Prosecutors argued the four people who felt threatened would fear for their life if Hadsell was released from jail. Prosecutors also cited his lengthy criminal history and recent drug use as reasons to deny bond. They said Hadsell admitted to detectives to increasing his cocaine use recently. They also say a scale with drug residue was found in Hadsell’s hotel room.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Hadsell said the arrest of her husband has been a distraction from the search for their daughter. “This week has been a roller coaster, but we’re focused on the positive, and we’re focused on trying to bring her home,” she said.

Mr. Hadsell said his time in jail has been spent thinking about where his daughter went. He said lead after lead and countless clues have not gotten them very far.

“I’ve gone crazy,” he said. “My brain has shut down. I think my wife is the same way. We don’t know what to believe, who to believe, who to trust. We look at things and nothing makes sense.”

Hadsell is also accused of hiding 72 rounds of nine-millimeter ammunition in an air conditioning vent inside his hotel room. Prosecutors said Hadsell admitted to having a weapon that used the same type of ammunition, but told detectives they would never find the firearm.

Hadsell is scheduled to be back in court April 29.

http://wavy.com/2015/03/27/missing-teens-father-to-stay-in-jail/

Anonymous said...

This site has helped me so much as I work with a criminal population...and attorneys and judges ;) thank you!

tania cadogan said...

“I’m not asking for understanding. I’m not asking for forgiveness … I’m asking for faith from the judge … that I can go and be there for my family, my loved ones, for my daughter, her friends, and they can give me that respect,”

Anything in t6he negative is sensitive.
Instead of telling us what he is asking for such as help finding his daughter, he tells us what he isn't asking for.

He tells us he isn't asking for understanding - what is there to understand?

If he is innocent what has he done that would require understanding?

He tells us he isn't asking for forgiveness - what is there to forgive?

Is that that people would understand what drove him to commit the crime?
That people would feel sorry for him?
If people knew what drove him to commit the grime they would forgive him?
It wouldn't have been his fault(subtle demeaning perhaps?)

I’m asking for faith from the judge
To do what?
Why faith and not trust?
What does he think the thinks when the judge sees his criminal record?
Given why he is in court currently and given he was the last person to see his daughter alive, would he give someone in the exact same situation bail?

that I can go and be there for my family, my loved ones, for my daughter, her friends,
Oh dear.
Order is important.
His priority is his family, his loved ones ( are they separate from his family?)
if his loved ones are different to his family i would be asking who he means, mistress perhaps etc.
His daughter comes in as his 3rd priorty and is distinct from family and loved ones which could perhaps give motive and finally her friends.

He makes no mention of his own friends, family friends or even friends in general to cover everyone who is not a family member, a loved one or his daughter.

This phrase is what caught my eye
and they can give me that respect,”
No mention is made of him being with his family etc to search for his daughter, to put out flyers etc, to support the searchers, he wants out so they, my family, my loved ones, for my daughter, her friends can give him respect.

I wonder if respect, or the lack of it is a motive?
I have noted previously he put athlete first, he spoke of someone obsessed with her, he has used sporting descriptions in his freely edited words, using front lines, goals, sidelines and goal.
Her being an athlete and his language are linked in his head and it is leaking out.
Given what is known about him and his record, respect is not something people are giving him, nor will they unless it is at the hands of violence.

Was he jealous of the respect and admiration AJ was getting?

Was he obsessed with her even though she was his step daughter?

Did she rebuff him?

Did she not respect him the way he felt he deserved?

He apparently planted her jacket at her boyfriend's house and then claimed he was acting on information he gathered.
If this was the case, why not go direct to LE and tell them what he had heard and they then could have gone to the house with a warrant and searched it making the find legal and above board.

Given he was the last person to see her, his strange comment about her departing his presence, lack of name, genral strange language and behavior, even he should have thought it would make LE a bit suspicious if the (unamed)POI conveniently finds evidence in someone els's house.
How his search party finds her cut up credit cards.

I wonder if they have asked him to take a poly and what his response was?

I also think they should be looking at sports grounds near water

john said...

OT:

Police Now Can't Find Woman Whose Kidnapping They Say Was A Hoax

VALLEJO, Calif. (AP) — Northern California investigators say they were suspicious when a man took hours to report that strangers broke into his home and abducted his girlfriend for an $8,500 ransom but had to take it seriously for the two days she was missing.

Denise Huskins, 29, reappeared 400 miles away in Southern California on the same day police revealed they had no proof of a kidnapping and believe it was a hoax. After the investigation turned to the couple, police said they weren't able to contact either Huskins or her family members by Wednesday's end and do not know where she is.

Huskins had indicated she would talk to detectives, and the FBI had arranged to have her flown back to Northern California, police said. She hired an attorney, but the lawyer's name was not released.

The day began with what seemed to be a happy ending: Huskins showed up unharmed outside her father's apartment.

Mike Huskins said his daughter called him to say she had been dropped off at her mother's Huntington Beach house. No one was there, so she said she walked the 12 blocks to his home, but he had traveled to Northern California to help with the search.

"She wasn't crying at all. She just said, 'Daddy, I'm OK,'" an emotional Mike Huskins told The Associated Press. "I feel very relieved. Can you imagine? You can't unless you've experienced it."

Her boyfriend, 30-year-old Aaron Quinn, had told police Denise Huskins was taken forcefully from their Mare Island home in Vallejo early Monday. He called police around 2 p.m. to report she had been abducted.

Vallejo police Lt. Kenny Park said the delay is part of what aroused suspicions.

"It was such an incredible story, we initially had a hard time believing it," Park said. "Upon further investigation, we couldn't substantiate any of the things he was saying."

It was not clear whether police have spoken with Quinn since they determined the case was a hoax. Park said he was "free on his own" for now and would not say whether the two may had any accomplices.

Police expressed disgust at the resources squandered — saying over 40 detectives had worked on the case — and the fear the couple instilled in the community with a report of random violence.

"Devoting all of our resources 24 hours a day in a wild goose chase, it's a tremendous loss," Park said. "It's disappointing, it's disheartening."

In another bizarre twist in the case, the San Francisco Chronicle received an email Tuesday from an anonymous person claiming to be holding Denise Huskins. The person wrote that she would be returned safely Wednesday, the newspaper reported.

"We will send a link to her location after she has been dropped off. She will be in good health and safe while she waits," the email read. "Any advance on us or our associates will create a dangerous situation for Denise. Wait until she is recovered and then proceed how you will. We will be ready."

It included an audio file of a woman identifying herself as Denise Huskins, who mentioned Tuesday's airliner crash in the French Alps to verify she was alive. Her father confirmed the voice in the file was his daughter's, the Chronicle reported.

Police had asked the newspaper to wait to reveal the email until the voice was verified, Park said.

Huskins' uncle described her as a person of sterling character, saying she is career-oriented, independent and strong. She works as a physical therapist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Vallejo.

"She's a good girl, not into any bad things," uncle Jeff Kane said.

GetThem said...

Let's stay away from Boston teams for a while ha, ha.

Did we already SA ARod? I think so, but I'm too lazy to look back.

tania cadogan said...

john said...

OT:

Police Now Can't Find Woman Whose Kidnapping They Say Was A Hoax


If it were genuine then she would be doing everything she could to nail the abductors.
This is the expected.

The fact that she is in hiding, refused to talk to the FBI and has hired lawyers smacks of her being guilty of something to do with said alleged abduction.

Her behavior is unexpected and thus a red flag.
It would also explain the negligible ransom demand, did he have that amount to hand ir as a bonus perhaps?

They should be able to trace the email that was sent from its ip address ( you can gets lots of interesting info if you click on an email/ click on properties/ details/message source )
whover sent it likely didn't know this.
Also if anything was printed out allegedly from the abductor, LE are pretty good at finding which printer printed it.

Moka Moh said...

such an amazing article thanks for sharing and posting .. this is so good for reading . العاب واي