Saturday, July 25, 2015

"Water" and "Doors" in Statement Analysis

Teachers, social workers and medical professionals have long known that 'water' is sometimes associated with sexual abuse.

A child who becomes obsessive about washing her hands may be a victim of sexual abuse.  It does not mean that she has, but it is an indicator that someone must inquire.

Linguistically, let's look at this same child:

The little girl has suddenly become obsessed with washing her hands.  This is something seen, visibly, and she is washing her hands (physically) because she is thinking that she should wash her hands though she may not know why. 

The principle is simple:

*the washing of hands is on her mind (brain activity) and she does it.
*the use of water, therefore, is on the brain.
*when speaking that which is on the brain, comes out.

Therefore, when water, in any form, enters a statement, we note it.  If water is mentioned, in any form, as an unnecessary detail, it is a very important point.

We do not interpret in Statement Analysis.

Water does not equal sexual abuse.

When someone says, "I washed my hands" in an unnecessary manner (no one asked if you did, for example), we believe the subject washed his hands.  We are not re-interpreting anything.

What are we doing is this:

We are seeking to learn why it was important enough to tell us.

What decades of research has found is that water is often found in sexual homicide statements, sexual abuse statements, statements with some form of negative sexual activity, and that it is found in the statements of both victims and perpetrators.  

To broaden the context, and show the need of questions based upon analysis ("Analytical Interviewing"), the source of sexual abuse could be, in adult language, something that took place many years prior.

Therefore, the scope is wide, and contextual questions are needed for closer examination and focus by the investigator.

Next we find that "doors" are often associated with sexual abuse, as well.  This is also not difficult to understand.

Picture yourself as a child victim and what trauma is in your brain when the door of your bedroom opened (or closed behind the perpetrator) and consider the acute impact upon the brain, and how in recall, "door" is very important to you.

When "door" is used unnecessarily, it is that we should explore childhood sexual abuse.

Recall the Baltimore Fake Hate money raising scam where she described the note using "door" in her wording.  It's inclusion should cause an investigator to learn if the subject was sexually abused in childhood.  This is where its inclusion is unnecessary to the sentence; making it very important to the subject.

Here is the transcript from our comments section.  For more on this, look at some of the analysis of the statements made by Amanda Knox that indicate presence at a sexual homicide.


STEVE: Brandon this is the second time that you’ve been accused of molesting your niece right? Tell me what happened.

"Tell me what happened" is the best question followed by "...and what happened next?" as the second best question.  Due to multiple accusations of molestation, the Interviewer  (Steve) properly framed the question with a statement first, so that the subject (Brandon) knows specifically where to answer.  Also note that "what happened?", though limited to the second accusation, still allows the subject to begin his question where he chooses, which can give us much yield, including priority.  
BRANDON: Uh, one saturday night I was watching the kids, I stayed with them about a month, month and a half. The whole time I was there, they slept all day. I became a maid, a babysitter, full-time. 

STEVE: For your sister.

Do NOT interrupt nor lead.  We were getting information from the subject and even if the subject paused, the Interviewer should remain silent signaling to the subject:  you have not told me what happened, therefore, I await your answer.  Also note that "tell me" is very strong, with "me" being personal, causing the subject to be 'rude' should he not tell "me" what happened.  

In spite of the interruption, he was asked about molestation and he has 'slowed the pace' down with his answer (a) and he has found a way to portray himself as a victim (b) in which one might even feel sorrow for him, being a "maid" and a babysitter, full time (not a "full time babysitter"; which I leave for another analysis) 

Abusers are often charming, which is why they are successful in grooming.  Here we see the need to not only stall the answer (internal stress; be on the look out for deception) but the need to be pitied, and cast blame upon another.  

Will he blame the sister for the molestation?

Molestors do blame others, including other adults who "knew not to leave me with the child, but did so anyway", right up to the child, herself, often ascribing the child in adult terms as a 'seducer' of sorts.  
BRANDON: Yes, nobody else was watching them. I’m the uncle, felt obligated. Um, the Saturday night that these supposed allegations were made, um, I want, I was watching the kids, put them to bed at eight, that was their bedtime. My niece was watching a movie, put the boys to bed. She kept turning the tv up and down. Well, before I get into that, supposedly they have videotape of me going in and out of my niece’s bedroom. I was in and out of the bedroom. But... Um - 

a.  Note the need to blame someone else.  He was "obligated"
b.  Note the need to indict his sister with "nobody else was watching them"; negligence;
c.  Note "supposed" allegations is met with "these", which indicates psychological closeness for the subject.  
d.  Note the weakness and psychological removal or distancing withe the dropped pronouns

Present tense language. 

Please note that present tense language reduces reliability.  It should be noted, however, that some perpetrators of perversion will 're-live' the molestation, even while attempting to deny it, because they are aroused by it.  

With victims, present tense language can show something similar:  they are re-living it, but not for arousal, but due to post-traumatic-stress-disorder-like symptoms of pain, guilt, shame, rage, suicidal ideation, and so on.  

This is why we do a separate study on the language of sexual abuse in our course and seminar. 

STEVE: They have surveillance cameras in their house?

Another reminder:  Don't interrupt, and do not lead!  The pause of "um" should be met with silence.  
BRANDON: Yes

STEVE: Why would, why would they do that?

We know what the Interviewer is after, therefore, so does the subject, but best to first complete the "what happened" narrative, by encouraging him with silence, affirmations, or by phrases of continuance such as, "I'm listening..." and "What happened, next?"

Therapists, take note.  
BRANDON: I don’t know. Went in there three times to turn the tv down because she was keeping my nephews awake. Then she calls me back in there cuz the disc start skipping. I go back in there, clean it off, didn’t work. Go back in there again, switch the movie, it worked.

a.  Note dropped pronoun 
b.  Note inclusion of number "three" (there is video verification), which leads us to consider that he may have done more so, as minimization is expected.  
c.   Note the need to explain why he went into her room even though he was not asked, "So, why did you go into her room?"

This is an indication of missing information that is extremely sensitive to him and may lead us to ask if he had an alternate reason for going into her room.  

d.  Note the subtle blaming of the victim with "she calls me back in there" in the present tense language.  This is to shift responsibility again to the victim.  She 'caused' him to go in there with television volume and now she caused him to go back in there because of the skipped disc.  This is to further affirm just how sensitive going into her room is to the subject, Brandon.  

e.  Note the word, "clean" as one that sometimes enters the language of perpetrators.  Some want to "clean" their name, rather than "clear their name."  This is sometimes associated with water, and with sexual assaults.  

f. Note, again, the dropped pronouns.  Ask yourself, "Why, at this point in his account, does he not wish to place himself in her room at this time, psychologically?

"Go back in there again, switch the movie, it worked" does not tell us who went "back" in there "again" (two words to double the emphasis, making this very sensitive, and without a pronoun, as if it wasn't "him" that was in there. 

Whatever took place in the room at this very time in his account, is something he does not want to associate himself with.  

By this point, you have a sense of what happened.  You have not heard a denial, only a "supposed  accusation" which, for innocent people, is enough to issue a denial.  
STEVE: So that’s your explanation for going back in there in the room?

Conclusionary.  Avoid.  There is no reason for us to conclude; we listen.  
BRANDON: Yes.

STEVE: When did you learn that you were being accused of molesting your niece?

BRANDON: A week later. I’m washing a load of clothes. I get a knock at the door. It was a [city] detective and two city cops. I open the door. He was like, “ are, are you Brandon?” I said “yes sir i am.” read me my rights and told me that my niece was making allegations against me that I touched her.

a.  Note he finally gets to the answer to "what happened?" in his response after significant pre-event description and explanation, noting the "need to explain why" scenario.

b.  Note the present tense language as not only associated with deception, but possible re-living of the sexual abuse. 

c.  Note the inclusion of water via, "I'm washing a load of clothes" as unnecessary to his answer, making the inclusion of water "very important" to the subject. 

d.  Note the inclusion of "door" as indication of possible childhood sexual abuse. That he mentioned the door, twice, makes it sensitive to him.  That he goes to the "opening" of the door, further affirms the possibility of childhood sexual abuse.  We know that most people who are abused in childhood do not go on to sexually abusing others, but of those who sexually abuse, most all (if not all) were molested in childhood; or some sexual trauma existed.  To date, I have not conducted an interview where this was not the case, nor has anyone submitted a case in which I doubted the perpetrator's own childhood status.  This may become, one day, an important argument against "genetic sexual attraction" used by defense attorneys, defending pedophiles against responsibility for their crimes.  

e.  Note that "I touched her" is not entering the language of his niece, nor the investigator, which may be, therefore, an "embedded confession" within his own words.  Note that being read his rights and "told" is both past tense and appropriate, with "told" being authoritative.  When read his rights, he must be "told" what the arrest is for:  no one is arrested for "touching" anyone.  It is "assault" or "sexual assault" and so on.  This is to not only avoid telling us what he is specifically charged with, but strengthens the assertion that it is an embedded confession. 

Investigator's Conclusion: 

When one has an opinion on whether someone "did it" or not, it is just that, an opinion, and if wrong, it is dismissed and forgotten.  

Not so for others. 

When an investigator or analyst makes a conclusion, he or she puts much on the line, including:

a.  The legal status of the accused.   The accused is now under arrest which is serious and can impact him, the victim, the case, and so on.  No sane investigator wants to see an innocent man arrested. 

b.  The investigator's reputation and career.  

Should the investigator conclude, from his analysis, that "he did it", and writes up a clear, concise report which suggests its own conclusion, the investigator now shares responsibility for the arrest with the district attorney's office, reducing the 'pressure' 


c.  The analyst's reputation and career.



Analysis Conclusion:

The subject has not denied the allegation and neither shall we deny it for him.  He has given us linguistic indication that:

a.  He molested his niece
b.  He did it in her room
c.  He is likely a victim of childhood sexual abuse 
d.  He is deceptive via withholding specific detail
e.  If asked questions based upon his own language, he will not pass a polygraph.  

The analyst stands upon these assertions and must trust that the polygrapher will do a good job with the polygraph machine and not contaminate the results by his or her own language given to the subject.  

The analyst, if wrong, will be seen as not only wrong but:

a.  having led to an innocent man's false arrest and possible trauma and fallout, including potential legal and civil ramifications

b.  will not be trusted for further investigations

c.  will not be hired in other training seminars, etc.  

In short, a strong conclusion, such as above, puts the work and the analyst "on the line", without equivocation.  

There are cases where the analyst may qualify, such as, "he is deceptive, but more interviewing is needed", or "not enough sample", or, "perhaps, maybe, possibly," and so on, can be used.  

This is why breaking down the analysis, point by point is so important because it allows the error to be located, should one be made.  

The scientific process is not subjective, nor a "feeling" but of continual digging according to pre-stated principles.  

In the above, I conclude:  he did it.  

Should he pass a polygraph, I would need the audio or transcripts of the pre-screening interview and the actual questions asked, and the results. 

Should he actually pass there is now a disagreement between results.  

Because we follow a systematic scientific process, the error will be found. 

Because we do not make a conclusion lightly, or upon a single indicator, we allow the subject to guide us, and the conclusion is based upon many points, bringing confidence to the conclusion. 

The written report is then taken, and analyzed in the same method we use for interviews and statements, with additional language removed. 

The end result:   The Investigative Report is clear, simple, and convincing the reader (DA, jury, etc)  of guilt, without the need to persuade.  

28 comments:

lgjproduct said...

I was sexually abused as a child - my earliest memories are of being abused. From childhood forward I have had nightmares that include imagery of windows, gates, doors, locks, keys not working properly - broken, melted, malfunctioning, dilapidated, overgrown, nonexistent, etc. Always in the dreams there is something bad approaching & I am frantically trying to barricade myself using whatever resources are at hand. Over time, and with therapy, the dreams have evolved to a less nightmarish quality & I have become more resourceful in fending off the approaching danger; however, the dreams are still quite anxiety-provoking & nearly always occur when I am sleeping on my back. I find the links to sexual abuse and the mention of doors insightful and validating to my own personal experience.

lynda said...

Fascinating article Peter. I would like to know , of all the investigative interviewers in the media past and present, whom do you think is at the top of their game as far as getting the most helpful/truthful information out of a person being questioned. It seems as far as mainstream media, the interviewer is in love with the sound of their voice and also feel that they have to pepper the suspect with questions, often interrupting them as the speak. It's very frustrating to the average viewer. I had to stop watching all of Oprahs supposed exclusive interviews because she keeps cutting her guests off and injecting her own thoughts. Sometimes even telling the person how they felt. Nancy Grace does the same thing,though in a different way because she falls on the side that the person is guilty most of the time. I was married to an undercover cop who did many interviews and he always told me his most effective technique was to just ask the question and say nothing. When his suspects ended what they wanted to say, he still said nothing and just stared at them. He said that almost 100% of the time, they couldn't stand the uncomfortableness of silence and him staring and then they would start to speak again. Giving even more information, babbling on, or trying to persuade him with more detail why they didn't do it. The proverbial, "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves." Do you also find that to be true?

Annonymous17 said...

You've had some naysayers on your blog about the link between doors, water and sexual abuse, but surely this post will clear that up. Why on earth would someone accused of sexual abuse mention washing his clothes and hearing a knock at the door when asked "when did you find out you were suspected?" I think most of us would simply say, "A week later when the police came to my house."

Like lgj above, the link between water and sexual victimization was consistent in my past work as a victim advocate. Sexual assault victims often say that immediately after the assault, all they wanted to do was take a long shower, to try to "wash away" the dirtiness of what happened to them, both literally and figuratively. That intense need to wash it away, in some cases, destroyed the evidence needed to prosecute, as victims couldn't wait long enough for a rape kit to get clean. It is no surprise that water and cleanliness would subconsciously imprint and come through their language later on when describing what happened.

Dee said...

Peter, thank you for analyzing this. If you watch the video, Brandon's sister (the mother of the niece) states that she was molested as a child. If she was exposed to a child molester, her brother may have been as well. It's interesting that you made that conclusion, because it fits with other facts that came out on the show.

He did fail the polygraph test, plead guilty and got ten years.

The whole statement is really fascinating to me. The tense changes are particularly telling, especially coupled with the dropped pronouns. It was also surprising to see so much of the language of childhood sexual assault about which you have written.

Lynda, I think Nancy Grace doesn't realize that she is not examining a witness on the stand and doesn't want to minimize what they can get out (like a lawyer who would want to contain information), but should want them to TALK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE and without being led by language! It embarrasses me for her, I used to be a big fan and she was a truly passionate prosecutor who was inspired to do her work by experiencing the murder of her fiance. But she does seem to be pretty awful at interviewing.

Jen Ow said...

OT:

This doesn't look like it will have a good outcome!

http://m.news4jax.com/news/police-child-taken-during-car-theft/34330746

Mother's boyfriend "Ebron" claims that his car was stolen with his girlfriend's 21 mo son inside. He claims that he was leaving at 2:00am(!) with the kids (21mo boy "Lonzie", and 5 yo girl) to pick up their mother, Lauramore, from her shift at a strip club. He claims that he left the kids in the running car to go back in the house for something, and the 5 yo followed him into the house saying she 'was scared'. Then when they went back out, he saw the car pulling out of the parking lot with an unknown person behind the wheel, and the boy still in the car.

The boyfriend claims that his phone was dead, causing him to delay reporting the car theft/abduction until he charged it up! (From what I gather, despite claiming he witnessed the abduction at approximately 2:00am, police were not notified/issued an Amber Alert until around 4am.)

The car was located less than 4 blocks away, still running, and the boy was not in the car. Residents of the neighborhood where the vehicle was found report that they saw the vehicle for the first time, parked in the area where it was eventually found earlier in the day. (The vehicle is distinctive, with mismatched paint on the hood/body.) The vehicle was moved/gone around 10:30pm, and then returned some time after that, parking where the police eventually found it.

Police have made a few statements:

Both Lauramore and Ebron are being questioned by police. Hackney said Ebron is providing information but that it hasn't been "as easy as it should be to get that information from him."

"It’s been a little bit like pulling teeth getting information, and it shouldn’t be that way," Hackney said.

"Police are trying to figure out where Ebron was all of Thursday night to see if that helps them find Lonzie. Police were also searching a laundromat on Powers Avenue, where Ebron reportedly washed some clothes Thursday night. Around 2 p.m., crime scene tape went up around the area, which is about 1.5 miles from the apartment complex, and three crime scene vans were seen investigating near a dumpster on the property. Investigators took a brown bag of potential evidence from the dumpster and reviewed surveillance video."

Jen Ow said...

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2015/07/24/j-s-o-working-possible-child-abduction-case/30607457/

(Correction to my earlier post, boy was reported missing at 2:20.)

"Detectives believe that Ebron is lying about the disappearance of his girlfriend's son, Lonzie Barton, JSO Director Tom Hackney said at a news briefing Saturday morning. An AMBER Alert was issued Friday morning for the boy.

———

"Detectives say Ebron and Lonnie's mother, Lonna Barton, live together in a rented room in an unit at Ravenwood Aaprtments, located at 8030 South Old Kings Road.

According to JSO, Ebron said he brought Lonna Barton to work at Wacko's Gentlemen's Club around 8:30 p.m. Thursday.

Before going to pick up Barton from work early Friday morning, Ebron put Lonzie and his 5-year-old sister into his car and went to a laundromat and put a load of clothes in, he told detectives. He then drove back to the apartment to use cocaine, leaving the children in the car with the engine running.

Hackney says it is unclear at this time how long the children were in the car after Ebron went inside.

Ebron said the 5-year-old girl then ran into the apartment and told him she was scared. Ebron said he went back outside and that's when he saw the orange 1995 Honda Civic being driven away - and it was unclear at the time if Lonzie was inside.

Ebron reported the auto theft and abduction to police around 2:20 a.m. Friday

According to JSO, the vehicle was later recovered without the child inside approximately 15 minutes later on the 8100 block of Cesperdes Avenue, which is four blocks away from the apartment complex.

Hackney says investigators believe the auto theft and abduction, as Ebron reported it, did not happen.

"William Ebron leaving the children turned him into part of a monster," Hackey said.

Hackney says the case is still being worked as a child abduction.

"We can't say at this time if Lonzie is alive or dead," Hackney said Saturday morning.

The search efforts encompass a few miles out of the area of the apartment and where the car was found, and includes K9 units, air units and dive teams. 40-60 detectives are going door-to-door in the Brierwood area and Hackney is asking all neighbors in the area to search every nook and cranny where a toddler could hide.

Hackney said that Ebron had a troubling background and multiple run-ins with police.

Ebron was last arrested May 30. He was ordered to have no contact with Barton and her sister, Tiffany Barton, as well as a 7 p.m. curfew.

JSO detetctive Dennis Sullivan asked the State Attorney's Office to revoke Ebron's bond on Friday, according to court documents filed in Baker County.

According to Duval County Court records, Ebron has convictions for battery, including a guilty verdict for domestic battery in 2012 after Ebron pleaded no contest.

Ebron also pleaded guilty to grand theft, court records show.

Two weeks ago, Barton filed a third domestic violence injunction against Ebron. The injunction also stated that Ebron stalked and cracked the ribs of an ex-girlfriend.

The records show that he's also accused of threatening to kill his niece and accused of raping his ex-girlfriend.

Hackney said Friday afternoon that the Ravenwood apartment was searched with Ebron's consent. However, Hackney said Saturday morning that Ebron was not being cooperative.

"William Ebron has gone from the point of remorseful to self-preservation," Hackney said.

Lonna Barton and Lonzie's biological father are being cooperative, Hackney said.

Detectives have also spoken to Lonzie's sister, but Hackney said she has not provided any concrete evidence.

Lonzie is 2-feet 6-inches tall and weighs 20 pounds. He was last seen wearing only a diaper."

Annonymous17 said...

"Lynda, I think Nancy Grace doesn't realize that she is not examining a witness on the stand and doesn't want to minimize what they can get out (like a lawyer who would want to contain information), but should want them to TALK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE and without being led by language! It embarrasses me for her, I used to be a big fan and she was a truly passionate prosecutor who was inspired to do her work by experiencing the murder of her fiance. But she does seem to be pretty awful at interviewing."

Dee, that's a spot-on comment. As a prosecutor, her strong suit was cross-examination (unlike a civil attorney who needs to excel at both direct and cross). The point of cross is to limit what the witness says, and put the court's focus on the attorney who is asking the questions. In cross, sometimes the answer doesn't even matter, you just want the court to hear the question. When you couple that learned habit with Grace's natural inclination to put the focus on herself on her own show, I'm surprised that any guest can say more than their name on her show.

tania cadogan said...

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The caregiver of a missing 21-month-old was arrested and charged with two counts of child neglect Friday evening, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.

Bond was set for William Ebron Jr., 32, at $100,006 Saturday. A Duval County judge ordered that Ebron have wear a GPS monitor and a drug patch. He is also ordered not to have contact with any family members of the alleged victims.

Detectives believe that Ebron is lying about the disappearance of his girlfriend's son, Lonzie Barton, JSO Director Tom Hackney said at a news briefing Saturday morning. An AMBER Alert was issued Friday morning for the boy.

———

Detectives say Ebron and Lonnie's mother, Lonna Barton, live together in a rented room in an unit at Ravenwood Aaprtments, located at 8030 South Old Kings Road.

According to JSO, Ebron said he brought Lonna Barton to work at Wacko's Gentlemen's Club around 8:30 p.m. Thursday.

Before going to pick up Barton from work early Friday morning, Ebron put Lonzie and his 5-year-old sister into his car and went to a laundromat and put a load of clothes in, he told detectives. He then drove back to the apartment to use cocaine, leaving the children in the car with the engine running.

Hackney says it is unclear at this time how long the children were in the car after Ebron went inside.

Ebron said the 5-year-old girl then ran into the apartment and told him she was scared. Ebron said he went back outside and that's when he saw the orange 1995 Honda Civic being driven away - and it was unclear at the time if Lonzie was inside.

Ebron reported the auto theft and abduction to police around 2:20 a.m. Friday.

According to JSO, the vehicle was later recovered without the child inside approximately 15 minutes later on the 8100 block of Cesperdes Avenue, which is four blocks away from the apartment complex.

Hackney says investigators believe the auto theft and abduction, as Ebron reported it, did not happen.

"William Ebron leaving the children turned him into part of a monster," Hackey said.

Hackney says the case is still being worked as a child abduction.

"We can't say at this time if Lonzie is alive or dead," Hackney said Saturday morning.

The search efforts encompass a few miles out of the area of the apartment and where the car was found, and includes K9 units, air units and dive teams. 40-60 detectives are going door-to-door in the Brierwood area and Hackney is asking all neighbors in the area to search every nook and cranny where a toddler could hide.

tania cadogan said...

Hackney said that Ebron had a troubling background and multiple run-ins with police.

Ebron was last arrested May 30. He was ordered to have no contact with Barton and her sister, Tiffany Barton, as well as a 7 p.m. curfew.

JSO detetctive Dennis Sullivan asked the State Attorney's Office to revoke Ebron's bond on Friday, according to court documents filed in Baker County.

According to Duval County Court records, Ebron has convictions for battery, including a guilty verdict for domestic battery in 2012 after Ebron pleaded no contest.

Ebron also pleaded guilty to grand theft, court records show.

Two weeks ago, Barton filed a third domestic violence injunction against Ebron. The injunction also stated that Ebron stalked and cracked the ribs of an ex-girlfriend.

The records show that he's also accused of threatening to kill his niece and accused of raping his ex-girlfriend.

Hackney said Friday afternoon that the Ravenwood apartment was searched with Ebron's consent. However, Hackney said Saturday morning that Ebron was not being cooperative.

"William Ebron has gone from the point of remorseful to self-preservation," Hackney said.

Lonna Barton and Lonzie's biological father are being cooperative, Hackney said.

Detectives have also spoken to Lonzie's sister, but Hackney said she has not provided any concrete evidence.

First Coast News confirmed a family relation exists between Lonzie Barton and Haleigh Cummings, who disappeared from her Putnam County home in February 2009. Haleigh's mother and Lonzie's mom are related, according to a family member.

Lonzie is 2-feet 6-inches tall and weighs 20 pounds. He was last seen wearing only a diaper.

Anyone who saw the orange 1995 Honda Civic or anyone who has any information is asked to contact JSO by calling 904-630-0500 or 911 or by email at JSOCrimeTips@jaxsheriff.org. To remain anonymous and receive a possible reward up to $3,000 contact Crime Stoppers at 1-866-845-TIPS.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2015/07/24/j-s-o-working-possible-child-abduction-case/30607457/

Anonymous said...

Nancy disGrace knows exactly what she is doing and saying and is deliberate in the way she interviews and slings out those insults and belittles people. It is her show, for affect and ratings, and this is all she cares about. She does not care about the missing and murdered women and children, she cares about Nancy. If I needed help in solving a case in my own life, Nancy disGrace and her freak show would be the last place I would go.

I was so bothered several years ago by the way she slants, harasses, insults and interviews subjects, and especially the way she talks too and insults the attorneys who appear on her show, that I fired off an email to Daniel Horowitz; an especially nice guy, good attorney and a good man.

I was feeling sorry for him, the way Nancy would cut him off and slam him and he could do nothing but sit there and take it while on the air. This was shortly before his wife was murdered in a temporary home they were living in while their new home was under construction next door. (He has subsequently remarried and they now have a child together). I don't know if he appears on her show anymore as I haven't watched her faked up c'rap in years and don't intend too.

Anyhoo, in our ensuing emails together, I asked Dan why Nancy treated him and the other attorneys the way she does and he told me that it was all for affect, that this is part of the show, it is the ratings that are looked at, and that privately and socially she is a nice person and is not like this at all. I have no respect for any of the attorneys who appear on her show now; Dan wasn't a glamour hog, some of the remaining ones certainly are, that I see on some of her commercials sometimes. They stay on her show for the exposure to clients they will pick up in the future.

Nancy having been a former prosecutor or having lost her previous fiancé to murder many years ago has nothing to do with it. She is a conniving little b'tch and this is the bottom line. She couldn't pay me good money to watch her freak show.

(As far as I know, anybody should be able to email Daniel or any of the other attorneys who appear on her show. Just google the name and you should be able to link into a contact email addy).

Dee said...

Anon17, that's one of the reasons why I started disliking Nancy Grace a few years ago. She became a caricature of herself because of the spotlight. Part of it is good marketing to have name recognition, etc., but her reporting became less responsible because of it. She got into the position of having these individuals on her show at really critical investigative periods, and basically blowing a chance to trip them up in speaking. It'd be interesting to compare how a similarly "passionate" detective would question the guests on their show. For the supposed purpose of the show, a prosecutor really isn't the best individual to be conducting these kinds of interviews.

Anon @ 4:56, I hope you didn't take my comment as Nancy pandering. I was a fan ten years ago when I was in high school and just beginning to develop an interest in true crime, criminal investigation, famous cases, etc. I read her book and gained some respect for her character. It's been about five years since I've been a fan and watched her show, partly because I started reading this blog around the Casey Anthony trial and ended up learning a lot of criticisms that people have for her from the comments section.

I know Nancy Grace isn't popular on here and I am not arguing on her behalf. I just wanted to share the thought I had about her style of "interviewing" and qualify it with my relatively neutral feelings toward her at this point. Overall, it's my opinion that she got into media with good aspirations. But, she sold out, and while I can't necessarily blame her for it, I lost respect for her and what she does. Now I enjoy laughing at her melodramatic promos on HLN, where it's all soft focus and sad music haha.

Anonymous said...

^^^ I'm just confused how the names keep changing in tania's post above. WTF is that? Bad reporting? These can't all be different people, I'm getting confused! >_<

Anonymous said...

Anon @6:07; what seems to be the problem? Tania (Hobnob) is primarily quoting statements and articles made public by others. I don't see any confusion in it. Am I missing something?

Hobnob; Wow! VERY interesting that the mother of the missing little 21 month old boy is related to Ron Cummings' ex-ole lady, what's-her-name, the mother of sweet Haleigh and Butter Bean.

Don't worry about any diverse opinions, Dee, we've been posting together a long time. I understand you.

Anonymous said...


https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/khloe-kardashian-were-no-drugs-kylie-kendalls-high-005658226-us-weekly.html?nf=1

just for fun check out Khloe's questionable denial of coke at her party. I like how she says "a" party but doesn't say this party:

“You guys will make up anything,” the 31-year-old reality star tweeted. “No! No one was doing coke at a graduation party in broad day light with teenagers and 15 production cameras! We aren’t as wild as you want to believe.”

“We were taking Jell-O shots though and you have to scrape the rim of the shot glass w ur finger to loosen up the jello in order 2 take it,” she continued (interesting snack choice, considering the partygoers!). “Just say no to drugs kids! Drugs so not our style.”

lynda said...

Deb and Anon...Thanks for your opinions. I too, get so frustrated with her interview technique and you're absolutely right..she has them on her show at critical times and if she let them talk, people like Peter would have a good basis for analysis that could really help! I admire Mark Klaas and would LOVE to see him do some of these interviews because he asks specific questions and doesn't let people get away without answering him. He also is astute at finding discrepancies almost immediately, it's almost like he may be a fan of Peter's :)

Nancy Grace's only purpose at this point to me is that she has a big audience and thus the missing or the murdered get national airtime which could help solve a case.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Anon,

I'm guessing bad/sloppy reporting? In some articles the missing boy's mother is identified as "Lonna Lauramore", and in some articles she is identified as "Lonna Barton".

Also, the missing boy's name is "Lonzie", but I see where he was referred to as "Lonnie", at least once.

It looks like "Barton" is the last name of the missing boy's biological father. I don't know if it has been reported that the mother and father were previously married/divorced? Maybe "Lauramore" is her maiden name?

MIND BLOWING that this boy is related to Haliegh Cummings! (Not that the character of the immediate and extended families inspired much hope for their future generations!)

John mcgowan said...

OT:

I wasn't aware she was even considered?

Ayla Reynolds ruled out as match for 'Baby Doe'
Unknown girl found dead in trash bag on Boston Harbor island


http://www.wmtw.com/news/ayla-reynolds-ruled-out-as-match-for-baby-doe/34354710

Dee said...

Awesome, I'm glad you guys understood what I was trying to say!

Poor little Lonzie. It doesn't seem like kids have much of a chance in that family if they're being dragged around in the middle of the night and left with strangers who put no effort into watching them - first Misty Croslin and now this fool.

HA, Khloe Kardashian lies! I saw an article sharing the party video, and a lot of people brought up the cocaine guy in the comments section.

“You guys will make up anything. No! No one was doing coke at a graduation party in broad day light with teenagers and 15 production cameras! We aren’t as wild as you want to believe.”

A reliable denial should use the pronoun "I," the phrase "did not / didn't" and be specific to the allegation. No "I" was used, meaning Khloe reduces her commitment to the statement. She instead reports that "no one" did coke, thereby failing to specifically address whether she or her sisters or the guest in the video did coke. If she did not say it for use, we cannot say it for her. She then stated they "aren't wild," which is an additional example of reporting in the negative; this is not to state what they did or did not do, but instead says what they "aren't." I wonder whether there is analytical info comparing people reporting what they "are" versus what they "did?" Lastly, the word "wild" does not address the specific allegation at hand, that cocaine was used. She has not reliably denied the accusation of cocaine use at the high school graduation party.


“We were taking Jell-O shots though and you have to scrape the rim of the shot glass w ur finger to loosen up the jello in order 2 take it. Just say no to drugs kids! Drugs so not our style.”


"were taking" is passive language. Does passive language mean she is trying to reduce her perceived involvement in the matter being questioned? I can't remember what Peter says about it.

"to loosen up the jello" is an example of using explaining language, meaning she answers "the question" before it has even been asked. This means the subject of the finger licking seen in the video is very sensitive to her.

"Drugs so not our style" is an interesting sentence. It seems like she has dropped an expected verb here, that "drugs are so not our style." This could be due to twitter character restrictions, but maybe has some element of reducing commitment to the statement. In addition to the missing predicate, the statement is reported in the negative ("not" our style, instead of what drugs "are") with unnecessary, emphasizing language ("so") for persuasive purposes.

John mcgowan said...

Just say no to drugs kids! Drugs so not our style.”

Just

This is to compare or minimize downwards. What is it they are comparing to?
"Just" can also used for something that has "just" occurred. I "just" received a call 5 minutes ago.

The shortest sentence is the best. "Say no to drugs Kids!

Just say no to drugs kids"!

Note that it addresses "Kids" only. What about adults? Shouldn't they too say "no to drugs"?


"Drugs so not our style.”

"our style.”


Note "our" this is a possessive pronoun. The word "our" is similar to "we". This is used to share responsibility, guilt, and hide amongst a crowd. Who is the "our" she speaks of? What is their "style" if not drugs?

Also note the qualifier "so", weakening the statement. A qualifier/s are words when removed, do not change the meaning of the sentence and is much stronger. Again, the shortest sentence is the best.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Florida police are hunting for a Jacksonville toddler who disappeared Friday while in a car belonging to his mother’s boyfriend, who is a suspect in the disappearance, MyFoxOrlando.com reported.

The boyfriend, William Ebron, told investigators Lonzie Barton, 21 months, was in Ebron’s car when the vehicle was stolen after 2 a.m. on Friday.

According to the station, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office reported early in the investigation that Ebron went into an apartment to get something and, when he returned, the car and Lonzie were gone.

The report ignited a massive manhunt for the boy.

The car was recovered several blocks away, but Lonzie was not inside, My Fox Orlando reported.

Chief of Detectives Tom Hackney officially named Ebron the suspect in the case Saturday and said investigators believe Ebron was lying about Lonzie’s disappearance. Hackney said authorities no longer believe the car theft and abduction happened as Ebron described.

Ebron, 32, was arrested Saturday and charged with two counts of child neglect, the sheriff’s office announced.

"If Mr. Ebron would cooperate a little more, we could have a successful resolution to this," Hackney said.

Evidence and communication with Ebron is what has led police to name Ebron as the suspect, according to Hackney.

Ebron has a long list of prior arrests, according to News4Jax.com, that include:

• 2007 arrest for trespassing and writing bad checks.
• 2008 arrest for driving with a suspended license
• 2009 arrest for possession of 20 grams or less of cannabis
• 2010 arrest for armed robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon and grand theft.
• 2011 arrest for grand theft as well as fraudulent use of Identification.
• 2012 arrest for violation of probation and domestic battery causing minor injury with a weapon

Hackney said investigators are still treating Lonzie’s case as a child abduction and don’t know whether the boy is alive or dead.

During a press conference Saturday night, Hackney said search crews located what could be key evidence in Lonzie’s disappearance.

“We are looking into a potential piece of evidence that was going to be recovered – either is being recovered or has been recovered," Hackney said during the 7:30 p.m. conference.

He said officers remain hopeful for Lonzie's recovery, but said that "as time progresses that hope fades."

Ebron’s first court appearance was scheduled Saturday afternoon. Duval County jail records didn’t show whether he had an attorney.

The sheriff’s office said Lonzie’s mother, Lonna Barton, was “very cooperative,” as is his father, Christopher Barton.

The Barton family confirmed that Lonzie's father is related to the mother of Haleigh Cummings, who disappeared from her Putnam County, Fla., home in February 2009. Suspicion fell on her father's future wife, Misty Cummings, but nothing has ever been proved, and Haleigh Cummings' body has never been found. She is one of only five Amber Alert cases in Florida history that remain unsolved.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/26/florida-police-id-suspect-in-toddler-disappearance/

Anonymous said...

I have a question. I just saw my journal from 2010 and in it I referred to myself as "a child". Does this mean I was sexually abused? I tried to recollect any incident or situation. What came to mind was a male adult distant relative who made a move where his hands/palms went all over my chest/upper body in a seemingly playful situation. We were outside in public and I thought nothing of it until later on when I was an adult and considered it as a subtle style of making a move towards a child. Does this count as a sexual abuse?

John mcgowan said...

OT:

The Transcript Of Sandra Bland's Arrest Is As Revealing As The Video
Encinia: You mind putting out your cigarette, please? If you don't mind?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-arrest-transcript_55b03a88e4b0a9b94853b1f1?cps=gravity_5119_-1231060269672711100

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I have a question. I just saw my journal from 2010 and in it I referred to myself as "a child". Does this mean I was sexually abused? I tried to recollect any incident or situation. What came to mind was a male adult distant relative who made a move where his hands/palms went all over my chest/upper body in a seemingly playful situation. We were outside in public and I thought nothing of it until later on when I was an adult and considered it as a subtle style of making a move towards a child. Does this count as a sexual abuse?
July 26, 2015 at 12:39 PM >>>

It does.

Your interpretation of it being a "subtle style of making moves towards a child" is on the right track: he was actually molesting you and seeing how you would react.

I'm sorry that it happened. Depending upon your age, you may, one day, more than simply consider it.

There is an explanation as to why this is, and it makes sense.

Peter

Cornelia said...

I don't understand this. There is no doubt he molested his niece, as his statement tell us.

But what if an innocent man is accused of going in and out of his niece's bedroom in order to molest her. Would he not feel an urgent need to tell everyone why he was in the bedroom?

Anonymous said...

I find it odd that when I remembered that incident, I always saw it as me judging that male distant relative as sick and having done something sick, yet it was as if I wasnt included in the picture. I saw it as "he did something", and not "something was done to me." When I did consider and said to myself aloud a while ago that "I was molested", I laughed and later on giggled. I dont know why! Maybe this is minimizing the incident?

When that incident happened, I remembered staying away from him and not wanting to be near him. Yet when it was happening, I knew it was an unnecessary thing for him to do given the context of the situation, I knew it was inappropriate not because it was wrong but because it didnt make sense. Yet I knew I didnt want to go near him after that. It is only now Im realizing this and - based on what you wrote about kids not having the language or understanding about whats being done to them - I now understand and makes sense.

Thank you Peter.

Anonymous said...

"It does.
Your interpretation of it being a "subtle style of making moves towards a child" is on the right track: he was actually molesting you and seeing how you would react.
I'm sorry that it happened. Depending upon your age, you may, one day, more than simply consider it.
There is an explanation as to why this is, and it makes sense.
Peter
July 26, 2015 at 9:32 PM"


I find it odd that when I remembered that incident, I always saw it as me judging that male distant relative as sick and having done something sick, yet it was as if I wasnt included in the picture. I saw it as "he did something", and not "something was done to me." When I did consider and said to myself aloud a while ago that "I was molested", I laughed and later on giggled. I dont know why! Maybe this is minimizing the incident?

When that incident happened, I remembered staying away from him and not wanting to be near him. Yet when it was happening, I knew it was an unnecessary thing for him to do given the context of the situation, I knew it was inappropriate not because it was wrong but because it didnt make sense. Yet I knew I didnt want to go near him after that. It is only now Im realizing this and - based on what you wrote about kids not having the language or understanding about whats being done to them - I now understand and makes sense.

Thank you Peter.

Dee said...

Cornelia, I have had the exact same thoughts about the "need to explain" sensitivity, but I think I understand it now. If I am correct, the idea is that his reduced ownership of the act casts doubt upon his "explaining statements." If his language reflected ownership of the act of going into the room (no dropped pronouns, consistent tense usage, few unnecessary words) then the explaining statement would be expected because he is desperately trying to clear his name. However, the fact that his language distanced himself from what occurred in her room that night makes his "explaining" statements inconsistent.

If you cannot even clearly commit to your actions with your language, it isn't expected for you to go into elaborate detail about "why" you did those things - unless you are trying to deceive as to your intentions. He never denied molesting his niece, which makes it strange that he takes the time to explain his "reasons" for going in, when he can't even deny the basic allegation. I believe it comes down to the idea that you cannot describe every single aspect of a situation, only what you deem most important, and if a person cannot deny the allegation, then it makes his explanations suspect.

I know if I was ever accused of a wrongdoing I didn't commit, I would be going crazy trying to explain any misunderstandings that I was aware of. But, I probably would also be denying the accusation with my language ("I did not swear in front of my students!" for example) in my statement at some point, likely in the beginning. The absence of an expected, reliable denial is what makes the explaining statements unexpected.... I think!

foodnerd said...

Regarding Josh Shaw, the college football player who lied about rescuing his 7-year-old nephew from drowning, when Shaw actually fell off of a balcony or side of building while drunk and allegedly intending to burglarize an apartment:

Was his choice of water for his rescue scenario possibly a clue for history of sexual abuse? Or was the pool just the first thing his drunk, panicked gaze spotted while he lay injured and panicked about repercussions? NCAA and NFL frown upon players injuring themselves with stupid people tricks unrelated to football play or practice.

He would understand that without a hero story to explain his injuries, he risked suspension or even removal from his college team and significantly lower draft position (a difference of millions in guaranteed money!) regardless of whether missing any college games, when he turns pro.

If the water is related to a history of sexual abuse and not just a randomly chosen hero scene is it any more significant that the water was a large, evil monster from which he was rescuing a helpless child? That seems a far louder expression than the many who refer to getting a glass of water or being near a lake in their statements!