Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Jeremy Banks: Analysis and Profile




Here is an article from the New York Times that includes exerts from the interview conducted.  There are many errors in the interview, including compound questions and leading questions, but the information from Banks is important.  

It is found HERE

Domestic Homicide. 

What causes Domestic Violence?

This question is too complex for any single answer, but for investigative purposes, context is key. 

Men thrive on respect as women thrives on love. Men and women need both love and respect, yet the language often reveals a lack in one or the other.  

This need for respect and love is a normal course of life and is a bedrock for a good relationship.  Extreme need  on either part,  however, can lead to inappropriate and even criminal behavior.  

A man who has a desperate need for respect can pose a risk to society in general; anywhere he perceives the lack of respect can become problematic, however, it can pose a specific risk to a woman in the case where he perceives her being disrespectful, which he considers as a threat to his manhood and ultimately, his control over her.  He may not hear, "I disagree with your decision" as spoken, but "you hold me in contempt!" while the bewildered victim struggles to understand what he means.  

When this is combined with poor impulse control, the threat increases.  

When this couples with a job in which lethal force is necessary, it speaks to a failure of the screening process.  The extreme insecurity, often masquerading itself, comes out in the language and Statement Analysis should be a part of every hiring process for law enforcement, beyond the typical psychological screening.  


Michelle O'Connell committed suicide, concluded the investigation into her death.  In 2013, Statement Analysis of Deputy Banks' phone call, however, indicated him for deception in what happened to Michelle.  

The call revealed a great deal of information that should have been used in the investigation.  The polygraph should have been, almost uniquely, in the language of Banks, himself. 

911 calls do not have any special 'status' or change in principle within Statement Analysis.  'Check lists' are helpful, only in calling one's attention to an issue, but should not be relied upon for 
conclusion.  

It is my assertion that the polygraph, when administered employing the subjective dictionary of the subject, is close to 100% fool-proof.  When the examiner speaks on and on, the subject learns and uses his language; language of which there is:

a.  No emotional connection
b.  No historical, that is, subjective connection personally.   

The molester who went on to repeat after passing his polygraph did not "molest" his girlfriend's daughter, he "tickled" her.  The word "tickle" was his personal subjective understanding, as he had no attachment with "molest" since "molest" means "pain", and he only "tickled." 

This it the cause of most errors in polgraphy;  the subject is given language that is not part of his personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  

Each person has their own personal subjective dictionary.  Had Bill Clinton been asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" he could  have passed the polygraph in his denial. 

Had he been asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky?", he would have failed in his denial.  He had a personal and highly subjective definition of "sexual relations" which he shared with Lewinsky before testimony saying, "it means intercourse.  We didn't have intercourse." 

This gave us insight into a pathological (life long) liar.  It was why he was able to say:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." 
to the American public, plainly and without qualification.  

In Banks' 911 call, not only do we see enough signals to conclude "guilty knowledge" within the call, we have insight into his personality; something that ended with the death of Michelle O'Connell that was not suicide.  

Our words reveal us. 

Our words, even under 'excited utterance' or an emergency, will reveal our:

1. background,
2  experiences
3. personality
4. priority

One might be tempted to say "I know the priority of the 911 call:  it is to save Michelle."  This is a good place to start.  We must learn if the words affirm this, or if the words employed deny this.  

This is the study of psychological profiling via statement analysis that is taught in our Advanced Course.  It sets the state for both the strategy and the tactics of the interview and interrogation.  You get to "know" the subject and his own language before the interview and interrogation and hopefully, before a polygraph is administered.  

Here is another look at the call with some of the more subtle points given.  





DISPATCHER: 911.

JEREMY BANKS: Hey.  Please get someone to my house! It’s 

4700 Sherlock Place. Please!


We have already noted that in an emergency call, the typical 

Statement Analysis principle of "expected versus unexpected" is 

in play, as the call begins with "Hey" which is a greeting.  We 

do not expect politeness, in any form, in such an emergency 

as one finding his girlfriend bleeding to death.  Urgency is 

expected. 


Please now consider the topic of "Urgency" 

In any emergency like this one, urgency is presupposed.  What 

do we look for?

We look for "Urgency" versus the "appearance of urgency" in the 

call. 

Consider that this is a deputy calling.  This means he knows

precisely how the 911 system works:   

while he is on the phone, dispatch begins.  This is an example 

of scripted or feigned urgency, as he repeats the call for help

yet he never asks for help for the victim. 

In fact, he says "get someone", and not anyone specific to come, 

but already:

1.  We do not expect the emergency call to begin with a greeting;

2.  We do not expect to hear politeness 

3.  We do expect the caller to ask for help for the victim, or, in

the case of CPR, help for himself, including how to stop the 

blood.  Even those trained, under emergency settings, still may 

require guidance, should the training give way to emotion.  

"Please" is repeated here. 

The 'need to ingratiate' or align himself with 'the good guys', that

is, with authorities, is evident.  

It is one single mistake made by the Dispatch that reveals great 

insight into Jeremy Banks' personality.  



DISPATCHER: What’s going on?


JEREMY BANKS: Please. Send─ my girlfriend, I think she 

just shot herself. There’s blood 

everywhere!



We note in analysis that he does not ask for help for her.  We 

have his third use of the polite and ingratiating "please", as if 

he does not know that dispatch has already taken place.  We 

then come to a critical place in the call where the victim is 

now introduced for the first time.  This is vital in our 

understanding.   Who is Michelle O'Connell?

This question is not for us to answer, but the subject, himself. 

Who is Michelle O'Connell to the caller?

We begin with Statement Analysis 101:  the social introduction.  

As this is an emergency call, we had already expected him to 

have already identified why rescue, not someone, was needed.

He did not, but gave the address, along with his politeness and 

his greeting.  He took the time to say "please" twice, but not 

to report that Michelle was bleeding. 

He reports that his girlfriend may have shot herself. 

He does not report that his girlfriend is bleeding.  

He does not report that he has his hand on the wound to stop

the blood flow. 

He only identifies her as she relates to him.  

This "incomplete social introduction" is an indication that at this

point in the statement, the relationship is not good.  

This is the essence of the teaching of social introductions.  We 

learn the quality of the relationship in the statement, in the

verbalized perception of reality, from the subject's unique point

of view. 

This is to tell us:

He has not asked for help for her, and that there is a problem in 

their relationship while she lays bleeding and he speaks to 

authorities. 

Context is key. 

That he has not asked for help for her is noted or 'red flagged.'

Why?

Because those who have committed the crime may not want 

help for the victim; but for themselves.  

If she lives, she may be able to tell authorities what happened.  

Psychologically, he is telling us that while Michelle lay bleeding

to death, he does not want to use her name, nor for her to receive

help as this might impact him.  (please see analysis of the 911 

call for clarity as this focuses upon the psychology of principle).

Next, he must report what happened:

1.  He only "thinks" she shot herself

2.  Passivity employed regarding the blood.


1.  He gives a weak assertion that she may have shot herself.  To 

use the word "think" here, he expresses a 'weak commitment' to

what happened.  It is a guess, at best.  This indicates that he 

either does not know if she shot herself, or that he does not 

want to be identified as knowing that she shot herself.  

This is then connected to:

2.  "There's blood everywhere."

This is in Passive Voice.  Passivity in analysis indicates a desire

to conceal, and this concealment is often responsibility. 

"There's blood everywhere" does not tell us:

a.  who's blood it is

b.  who caused it

In less than a millisecond of time, he chose wording that would 

conceal responsibility for the shooting while, again, 

psychologically distancing himself from her while she lay 

bleeding out. 

What could he have said?

"Michelle is bleeding from..." and what he is doing to remedy it.  

The use of passivity means he does not want it know who's 

blood is everywhere because blood does not just end up 

everywhere, it must be caused by someone and some thing.  This 

use of passivity does not sound 'right' to dispatch:  



DISPATCHER: She what?

With or without proper Statement Analysis training, the person is

going to recognize how awkward things sound...not hearing her

name as well as the passive voice.  Hence, the question is asked

for the purpose of clarification.  This ended up working out for

those interested in truth:  



JEREMY BANKS: She shot herself! Please. [unintelligible] Get 

someone here please.


Here he plainly reports the change:  "she shot herself."

a.  "She" is not "Michelle"; he again avoids using her name.

b.  "She shot herself" no longer is qualified by "think" which

reveals that he initially was not truthful when he used the 

additional word "think."  For those who would defend him 

based upon 'excited utterance'; the same defense is the same

that convicts him:  it takes more effort to add a word in than 

it does to leave it out (the law of economy).  By forcing him 

to repeat "what happened?", he goes to the shortest route of 

language dropping the qualifier.  

This is where "deception indicated" becomes strengthened.  We 

also have him making an effort with two more uses of the polite

"please" that is used to appear to be begging.  This need to 

appear to be urgent is undermined by his use of both passivity 

and of psychological distancing language; including his 

avoidance of saying her name.  

The next statement gives us insight into the negative relationship

that has already been discerned by the incomplete social 

introduction, distancing language and passivity:  



DISPATCHER: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.



JEREMY BANKS: It’s mister! It’s SIR!


This is critical.  Whereas most would not care to correct but to 

seek guidance on how to stop the blood flow, he uses the 

opportunity, instead of helping Michelle, to correct the 911 

operator.  He not only corrects 911, he uses two different 

words to do so.  

First he uses "mister" as to identify gender, but the language 

undergoes a serious change.  Remember the context:  not only 

has he not asked for help, nor guidance to stop the blood flow,

but he has a need for respect while she lay bleeding to death.

He makes certain she knows it is not only a "male" that 

911 is talking to, but he will be addressed as "Sir." 

As we consider that he does not ask for help, nor does he address

the blood flow or first aid techniques, he has already revealed 

a problem in their relationship.  Now, he shows more concern 

that he, himself, be respected, than Michelle, who's name he will 

not utter, who lays bleeding out.  

This is to provide insight and due to the extremity of the 

situation, respecting him is a priority far above that of 

Michelle's emergency need for help.  



DISPATCHER: Ma’am, listen to me─


With a loved one bleeding to death, one is not likely to care to 

correct the error, but to address the first aid need to stop the 

blood.  



JEREMY BANKS: It’s SIR! It’s SIR. Listen─ hang on, let me 

tell you the truth.  I’m Deputy  Banks with the St. Johns County

 Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!

This provides insight into his psyche.

He is "Deputy Banks" and you better address him as "Sir" as he

now takes "authority" yet a single word here, "truth", tells us

precisely what he wanted to withhold:  his own identity. 

He introduces himself by saying, "let me tell you the truth."

This indicates that the "truth" of this case involves him, 

on  a professional level. 

Not only did he not ask for help for her, nor offer help for her,

and that he distanced himself from her, her status, one of 

bleeding to death is directly related to his job.

This tells us to carefully go back and review the need for 

passivity in speech:  to conceal responsibility. 


Dept. Banks has the need to conceal who caused the blood of

Michelle O'Connell to be found everywhere.  

He does not ask for help for her because he does not want her 

to receive help.  

He has now admitted that he has not told the truth, but:

'You will call me "Sir", for I am "Deputy Banks" and I have not 

told you the truth before, but now I have revealed it. '

When coupled with passivity in speech, we have a connection 

between him as a professional (armed) and her blood. 

This is his connection, in which he attempts to conceal with 

his scripted "please please" (5x) as he continues to demand

what he already knows is happening, yet his brain, in choosing 

what words to speak, will not allow him to say why "someone" 

should come to his house.  

He does not ask for help for the victim.  


He has told us that this is a bad relationship and that he has a 

powerful need to be respected...or else.  This is likely what 

Michelle O'Connell lived under.  


DISPATCHER: Ok i need you to calm down you know how it 

goes. Whats the address ? I don't..

JEREMY BANKS: 4700 Sherlock Place.

DISPATCHER: Ok what's going on there?


Dispatch has a need to ask this because he gave conflicting 

accounts.  First he feigned that he did not know and then 

he told that he did know, and introduced the word "truth" all 

the while avoiding both her name and the request for assistance.

He did not ask for help for himself in administering aid to 

stop the blood, nor has he expressed any concern for her. 

Yet, while showing no concern for her, he makes quite certain

that he gets the respect his office demands. 

There are likely those who will attest to this personality, both

in the department and in the public, including those who may 

have been stopped by him in traffic.  

We all give ourselves away in language.  Here, we are hearing

not only deception, but classic insecurity and control that is

indicative of precisely what the language of incomplete social

introduction and distancing show:  domestic violence.  


JEREMY BANKS: My girlfriend has just shot herself with my 

duty weapon. Please get someone here now please.


Here is another critical point:  he already has admitted knowing

that she "shot herself" but now, rather than show any concern

for how he may assist her, the call continues to be about 

Jeremy Banks, himself:   this sentence reveals the ownership of

the weapon, as if this matters.

It does not matter to an innocent caller who owns the weapon, 

instead, the innocent caller wants the victim saved. 

He has not addressed any urgent need for the victim, but 

has the need to, now that he is telling the truth, identify the 

ownership of the gun.  

The scripting of "please" (7x) continues, while he avoids using

the victim's name; only relating to her how she relates to 

him.  We have his girlfriend and his "weapon."  

That he called it his "weapon" warrants further exploration into 

his cultural use of the phrase.  However, the pronoun "my" 

tells us of his priority.  

Do you know Michelle's condition?

Do you know where her blood is leaving her body?

Do you know if she is breathing?

Do you know if he has done anything to stop the blood flowing?

We know none of these but we do know who owns the weapon. 

We also know something else...

timing.

"has just"

Consider how close this comes to a confession. 

If he said, "my girlfriend just shot herself" it would indicate 

that he was deceptive when he said, "think" previously.  This 

deception is affirmed but the incomplete past tense use here 

tells us much more information than meets the eye.

He did not say "my girlfriend just shot herself" which the word

"just" would indicate something close to the present time; that 

is, quite sudden, or before this call.

Instead, he used "has just" which is an imperfect past tense 

usage.

"My girlfriend has just shot herself..." even though his point 

of admission is ownership of the gun, the use of 

"has just" indicates a passing of time. 

He took it from 'sudden' past, to a 'spread out' past time. 

This tells us, in the less than millisecond of time that his 

brain chose this word for the tongue, that time elapsed 

longer than he wishes to let on, of which he was eye witness.

Now, why would he do this?

Answer:

Because he is thinking of what happened before she shot 

herself.  He is thinking of the time period that he was 

present, where something happened that he does not want

the 911 operator to know. 

He is withholding critical information.  


Something happened, in direct relationship to her shooting

herself, that Jeremy Banks is withholding.  


It is in this period of time that there may have been a brutal

fight, assault, or something else that is directly related to 

her death.  

If it is true that he broke her jaw, this is when it happened.  


DISPATCHER: Sir we're doing that while in talking to you. is 

she still breathing ?


911 properly addresses him as "Sir", and reminds him of what 

he already knows:  they are in transit.  

Since he has offered nothing about her, but lots about himself, 

he now must be asked about her current condition.  

Is Michelle breathing?



JEREMY BANKS: No,there is blood coming out of everywhere.-

please.


He answered the question, used his "please" again (8) and

avoided her name, while going back to the passive voice

about blood.  Now it is coming "out" of everywhere.  This 

avoids telling us the source of the blood, while we continue to 

wait for him to say that he is trying to stop the blood flow.  




DISPATCHER: Ok, she's not breathing.


JEREMY BANKS: Call dispatch on Tac 2, get them here now.


He has gotten through the 'worst' of revealing who he is and 

has employed deception to avoid telling what happened 

in its entirety, and has regained his 'authority' over dispatch. 

This is affirmed by the sudden disappearance  of "please"; as he

no longer feels the psychological burden to ingratiate himself;

he has been called "sir" and he has been restored to his 

place of authority. 

This is a dangerous man.  

As to this regaining of confidence, it is quickly lost when a 

single word from the operator reverses the roles:  he is told what 

the police "need" him to do:   


DISPATCHER: Sir they're on the phone I need you to calm 

down

This puts him back into a subordinated role as police "need" or 

direct him to do something.  This brings back the script:  



JEREMY BANKS: Please please please-



DISPATCHER: Jeremy were coming as fast as we can ok? Calm 

down for me ok.


911 now calls him "Jeremy" and implores him to calm down.  

He gave them no information and how to be asked about her

breathing.  


JEREMY BANKS: Please, you don't understand she just shot 

herself, pleases get someone here.


As he continues this subordinated position, he implores the 

operator to "understand" what he has repeated.  This is to show

that he has a decent intellect; he understands the points that 

he made poorly, including "I think my girlfriend shot herself..." 

which then nullifies "my girlfriend has just shot herself"; as 

an outright lie.  

Jeremy Banks is the one in need. 

He needs to be understood. 

He needs to be justified.  

He gave no detail about her condition yet pleads for that which 

he already knows is underway (see his 'authoritative voice') 

and his need of personal respect. 

He is more concerned about himself and the ownership of 

the gun than the victim, of whom he did not ask for help. 

He did not offer her condition, nor how he would remedy her 

condition through first aid.  






Analysis Conclusion:

Jeremy Banks indicates deception via withholding information, and the interview will have to be combative in nature if it hopes to obtain an admission, or more likely, enough inconsistencies for a conviction.  


He is not likely  to admit much but investigators will have to focus on interrogation skills using blunt language and forensics but especially the tool of his own language, need for respect, and his need for control.  

They must exploit his need for respect, while putting him into a subordinated role by using his own words as well as evidence. He will feel 'shamed' in reading 
or hearing his own words and how they betrayed 
him.  His anger could provoke him into admission, or in the least, to revealing information, just as we saw when the 911 operator referred to him as a female.  

Collateral interviews should confirm or suggest confirmation about the relationship as well as his acute need for respect.  

The language is consistent with Domestic Violence. If the exhuming of her body has revealed a broken jaw, it is likely that this is what Banks had in mind when he used an imperfect past tense (elongated) reference above.  This is likely where the dispute escalated.  

 Jeremy Banks is deliberately withholding information about what happened.  

Please note that Jeremy Banks has been cleared by investigators and is judicially innocent.  

When one speaks, there is an expectation that the audience will believe or disbelief the subject, and retain the right of personal opinion.  

If you are interested in Statement Analysis training, for your department or business,  please visit www.hyattanalysis.com for seminars, courses, on going training, and support.  



42 comments:

Bobcat said...

Thank you for this thorough follow up analysis!

I wish we could hear Davey Blackburn's 911 call.

Anonymous said...

OT - DeOrr Kunz Jr. Case

Authorities found new evidence on a 3-day search in an area previously unsearched. The new search is a site that was concluded after Issac R. gave new information to police, and Klein Investigators confirmed that 8 new witnesses came forward with new, firm information (during winter months when no searches could take place).

Anonymous said...

Did he get away with murder?

Anonymous said...

I just googled and they're saying it wasn't a suicide! They're saying it WAS a homicide.

Anonymous said...

A sherrif at the dept. said of her family exhuming the body: Molesting Michelle from her place of rest … is beyond unconventional, it reprehensible." What the heck! Molesting?!

Anonymous said...

Please analyse Sheriff Shoars incredibly lengthy and defensive statement about Michelle's body being exhumed, Peter! It's SO disturbing. Something VERY fishy is going on with this Sheriff and Jeremy Banks!!

Nic said...

Peter said:

This is affirmed by the sudden disappearance of "please"; as he

no longer feels the psychological burden to ingratiate himself;

he has been called "sir" and he has been restored to his

place of authority.


I really enjoyed this analysis, Peter, especially so because the profiling really enriched your analysis.

Something struck me about Jeremy Banks. Speaking from a mom's perspective, do think his mother made him say "please" growing up to correct what she would have perceived as "impolite"/ungentlemanly behaviour?

It would be interesting to learn if his mother was the type to ignore him unless he said please and then reward him for saying it (getting what he wanted, regardless, just because he said please.) So knowingly/unknowingly working at cross purposes.

It's always the mother's fault. (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

Anonymous said...

http://m.staugustine.com/2016-05-23/sheriff-shoar-statement-release-information-michelle-oconnell#gsc.tab=0

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Bill Cosby ordered to stand trial in decade-old sex case

http://www.fox29.com/news/144378174-story

Peter Hyatt said...

That statement is shocking.

Anonymous said...

What's going on, Peter! Why is the sheriff SO defensive, and the lawyer, too. They have issued several extraordinary aggressive statements attacking Michelle's family.

Nic said...

the speculation was that a paid expert witness would be hired by these family members to produce a report that of course would support their belief about the case. Today we learn that this speculation was accurate.

The family had Dr. Anderson exhume the body and perform forensic tests along with the help of two dental experts. They are not "paid" witnesses. They are experts. Interesting how the sheriff goes right to the "court room" to discredit the "witnesses" when it hasn't come to that yet.

Sounds like panic mode to me.

So is the Sheriff saying that because they have "no connection to any official entity including law enforcement", in other words positions wherein they could be "influenced" and/or directed, or stonewalled by LE, their report/findings are invalid?

It is critically important to note that no person officially associated with a prosecutor’s office or law enforcement agency was in any way involved including when she was removed from her place of rest

I think that was the family's point. I hope they're successful getting the ME's cooperation and the prosecutor's support.

JamieB said...

...less than a millisecond of time, he chose wording that would...


-------------

mil-li-sec-ond

[mil-uh-sek-uh nd]

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun


1. one thousandth of a second.



-------------

The processing of language is complex. An amazing thing about our brain is that all of this processing takes place in a little over half a second!

http://readingroom.mindspec.org/?page_id=8898


How does your brain pick one word from 50,000 in 0.6 seconds?


The average English-speaker has about 50,000 words in their mind. But how do they find the right one in 600 milliseconds?...


So far, for example, the average response time for correctly naming the picture of a dog is about 700 milliseconds.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-35735472

Anonymous said...

Here's the 911 call. As you'll see, this recording is clipped, but it gives a very good picture of the call. I cannot find the complete 911 call. Anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6sJlRzfEk





elf said...

As a deputy shouldn't his training have kicked in during the 911 call? Isn't his failure to do so a red flag in itself? I'd expect him to state his name and rank, and whatever code that his dept uses for gunshot wound (i.e. : "this is deputy banks and I've got a code 123 at /address/ requesting ems and back up." ) it seems like he was trying to sound panicked, especially with all the pleases.

Anonymous said...

Yeh, he sounds "hysterical" and his voice was high-pitched to the point dispatcher thought he was female. It's bizarre how he drastically lowers his voice suddenly, after being called M'am by the dispatcher. Yeh his ignorance re 911 procedure, as a cop, seems a red flag, kept demanding they dispatch help when he must have known they already had done so.

Anonymous said...

One would expect a professional police officer in a situation like that to at the very least handle it with professionalism, and number one would be attending to the victim with life-saving efforts. His call to 911 - I would expect him to be calm and factual and efficient in his reporting of what had happened, and the state of the victim.

lynda said...

The Sheriff is being so aggressive because he KNOWS he murdered her and he covered it up. The Blue Wall is in fine form at this dept. It sounds like the Sheriff has a need to be in control and respected also. He insults her family, if her MOTHER wants to exhume her, how dare he take the position of the moral police and accuse them of "molesting" her. I hope her parents go to every national TV show, everywhere on SM, etc. and SCREAM until they arrest this piece of shit AND his boss. The sheriff will do and say anything to persuade people he has everything under control when in actuality he has NO control over his men if they beat up women and then murder them with their service weapons. Not to mention, it is a black mark on HIS record too. Hopefully they kick him out and prosecute him also.
YAY for MOM!

lynda said...

Comment from Michelle's aunt (not confirmed) in regards to Huffpost article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-doran/murder-or-suicide-the_b_10110682.html


Patty O'Connell
I am Michelles aunt not her mother.
There is incorrect and misleading info in this article.
From Sheriff sHoars statement above “A paid expert witness (was) hired by these family members to produce a report that of course would support their belief about this case.”
NOT TRUE- Dr. Anderson and 2 forensic dentist did this autopsy for free. THEY WERE NOT PAID.
From above "Neighbors who passed an FBI polygraph reported hearing screams before the two gunshots, but ultimately they were deemed not credible.
NOT TRUE - Sheriff sHoar tried to discredit them in his report by saying they had been smoking weed and drinking when they hadn't.

There is probably other incorrect info in this article. I'll pass it on to those that were closer to the tragedy for their input.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr

Anonymous said...

I think it's disgusting the way he has attacked the mother and other family members. There isn't a shred of compassion in any of his statements that I've read toward the victim's grieving loved ones, just contempt.

Vicki said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/as-obama-and-g7-arrive-in-japan-tokyo-press-will-be-falling-in-line/2016/05/24/8c5ebcf2-2120-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae_story.html

“Well-known broadcasters and commentators with reputations for tough questions have left long-term positions, allegedly because of an environment hostile to or fearing the consequences of criticism of the government,” he said in a punchy initial report issued in April after a week-long visit to Japan.



The government has strongly pushed back against his report and is now preparing an official response.

“Freedom of expression, notably freedom of speech, is an essential and fundamental human right strictly guaranteed under the Japanese Constitution and also ensures democracy,” said Kenko Sone, a spokesman for Abe, adding that the prime minister “highly respects” freedom of expression.

“There is no truth whatsoever to the claim that the government put pressure on news media or persons connected with the press,” Sone said.

Nic said...

OT - Amanda Blackburn case.

Re Affidavit of Probable Cause

Perkins spoke with David Blackburn at Methodist. Blackburn said he left his home around 6:00 AM in his black 1997 Honda Civic to work out at L.A. Fitness … Blackburn stated that he left the front door unlocked when he left. He left the gym at approximately 7:10 A.M and was talking on the phone with his friend, Kenneth Wagner. Blackburn stated that he remained on the phone on the way home and was still on the phone when he arrived home at approximately 7:30AM. He stayed on the phone in the driveway until he entered around 8:20AM. David Blackburn entered his home through the front door and found Amanda Blackburn face down in blood on the living room floor. She was nude with her panties next to her and her shirt pulled up as if someone tried to pull it off; however, it was not clear Blackburn had been sexually assaulted. Blackburn noticed her credit cards and wallet on the floor. He noticed her purse on the kitchen counter and a Swisher Sweet cigar package on the counter …..A decorative ladder and a lamp were knocked over in the living room …


Crime Scene Specialist Colleen Clark documented the scene with the scene with video, …..She recovered change from he landing floor, gray panties, a roll of duct tape and earphones from the living room floor. She recovered a Swiisher Sweets package from the kitchen counter. Amanda Blackburn’s purse and wallet were recovered from the counter.

____________

I apologize for hijacking the thread, the Part 3 commentary is nearing 700 comments and I didn't want the above to get lost/go unnoticed. I think this is remarkable!!!!

*** DB reported noticing the wallet in a completely different room of the house from where it was documented by CSI.

I did some analysis the other day where DB said some things "looked" out of place and I analyzed his reporting as "staged". He was the last one in the house before the fire department/LE arrived.

I've always wondered how the assailants had gotten Amanda's PIN. What if it was written down for them and it was rejected because they weren't able to read the handwriting.. and then they had to follow-up for clarification (why they were calling for "numbers").

jmo

Shannon Duane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GeekRad said...

OT-

Casey Anthony back in the news, and Jose Biaz. The former private investigator for her legal team has claimed Casey told Biaz she killed her daughter and Biaz wanted the investigator to find her body before anyone else did. Also claims she was paying her legal fees with sex (big surprise there, wink). Check out CNN News and herehttp://www.people.com/article/jose-baez-hits-back-dominic-casey-allegations-sexual-relationship-with-casey-anthony

Anonymous said...

Sounds like garbage tabloid "news" to me.

GeekRad said...

Anon at 5:49, I thought so too. It is in two affidavits related to her bankruptcy case. I can't remember which article had the link to the affidavits. The readers here will love Baez's denial.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Casey Anthony made a rare public appearance on Wednesday morning, stopping by a car dealership to pick up a new car.

A smiling Anthony, 30, browsed the selection of vehicles at a Ford dealership in West Palm Beach, Florida before driving off in a shiny blue SUV.

She was dressed comfortably in jeans, flats, a loose button-down shirt and glasses for her morning of shopping, which ended with her leaving the lot with her big-ticket purchase.

The car appears to be a Ford Escape, which starts at approximately $25,000 and then goes up in price with added features.

It has been eight years since Antony's daughter Caylee went missing and was later found dead, and on Tuesday new documents emerged that made shocking claims about Anthony and her lawyer Jose Baez.

Private investigator Dominic Casey stated in an affidavit filed with United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division: '[On] Saturday, July 26, 2008, Baez had told me that Casey (Anthony) had murdered Caylee and dumped the body somewhere and, he needed all the help he could get to find the body before anyone else did.'

Casey also claimed in the affidavit that Anthony traded sexual favors with Baez to cover her legal fees.

Anthony was found not guilty of killing her daughter Caylee in 2011 after a two-month trial that enraged the nation.

The two-year-old girl went missing in June 2008 and her skeletal remains were later found in a bag near her home in December of that year.

Mr Casey claimed in his affidavit that on September 5, 2008, Anthony was scheduled to sit down for a television interview but told Baez she did not want to do it, leading him to cancel with the network.

That is when Mr Casey claimed Mr Baez, who is married, told him: 'You now owe me three blow jobs.'

Later that month there was another incident Mr Casey claims when he arrived at Mr Baez's office and saw Ms Anthony naked.'This time she ran from his private office, through the conference room to the hallway,' Mr Casey claimed in the affidavit.

'That night, I told her that she cannot allow [Baez] to continue engaging in this behavior. Casey told me she had not money for her defense. I reminded her that Baez had more than enough money from the network he sold the photographs to pay for her defense,' said Mr Casey.

'Casey apologized and assured me it would not happen again.'

Mr Casey also spoke about the recovery of Caylee's body later in the affidavit, claiming that Baez had suggested the baby would likely be found in the swamp where investigators did eventually discover her body.

'Baez had already told me on Saturday, July 26, 2008, that Casey had murdered Caylee and dumped the body somewhere,' claimed Casey.

'He also suggested to me that if I could gain access to the swamp on Suburban Drive without being seen, to do so because it could be the place that Casey had dumped Caylee's body.'

Mr Baez did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3609667/Casey-Anthony-hiding-Smiling-tot-mom-buys-new-car-one-day-release-court-docs-claiming-traded-sexual-favors-pay-legal-fees-murder-trial.html

GeekRad said...

Thanks Tania. Good article. I hope the idiot jurors read it and suffer many a sleepless night. She is free because of them.

Anonymous said...


Baez's denial: http://www.people.com/article/jose-baez-hits-back-dominic-casey-allegations-sexual-relationship-with-casey-anthony



A Strong Denial

In a statement to PEOPLE, Baez disputes all Dominic Casey's allegations. "I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony," he writes. "I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever.I have always conducted my practice consistent with the high ethical standards required of members of the Florida Bar," he continues. "My representation of Ms. Anthony was no exception."

"Legal action is forthcoming," Baez writes.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the article says Baez denied all allegations, but his statement only discusses the sexual allegations and not the allegation he told Dominick that Casey killed Caylee.

Bobcat said...

Anon @ 8:10

Unreliable Denial

GeekRad said...

Unreliable denial and not commenting on saying a about knowing Casey killed Caylee. Guilty of both. Neither is a surprise to me.

lynda said...

"I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony," he writes. "I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever

Bill Clinton defense. The PI said he exchanged "blow jobs" which in Mr. Baez's world, is NOT sex, or a sexual relationship. It was just a blow job. I notice he didn't deny that which he was accused.

Lis said...

OT Casey Anthony-
None of this comes as a surprise to those of us who followed the case. I still think there was some kind of jury tampering, probably due to the death penalty being on the table. The verdict was more a statement against the death penalty than Anthony's guilt or innocence.

sonjay said...

Peter, can you clarify something? In the Jeremy Banks 911 call, when he identifies the gun as his duty weapon, your analysis notes this: "It does not matter to an innocent caller who owns the weapon, instead, the innocent caller wants the victim saved. He has not addressed any urgent need for the victim, but has the need to, now that he is telling the truth, identify the ownership of the gun."

I interpret this as meaning that it's somehow questionable as to why he would feel the need to state that it's his gun.

But in the Police Chief William McCollum 911 call, you wrote this:

"Note "the gun" and not "a" gun as first introduced, and, since he is chief of police, he does not say it is "my gun" which would take ownership of the gun.

This means that there is something sensitive about ownership of the gun."

So in McCollum's call, it's somehow questionable that he didn't say that it's his gun.

Am I missing something? Is there something about the context of these 911 calls that led to these seemingly disparate interpretations?

The Sheep said...

Baez is a sleazy attorney who has, arguably, had great success in that regard. He told that bullshit drowning story. He's a 10%-er when it comes to deception: he got more than a blowjob.

Anonymous said...

Why wish ill on the jurors? Casey Anthony is free because the state failed to convince the jury of her guilt.

Anonymous said...

Baez won a high-profile case that enraged the nation and allowed the accused to walk; he's always going to be accused of being a bad man and lawyer in the eyes of those who disagreed with the verdict.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Why wish ill on the jurors? Casey Anthony is free because the state failed to convince the jury of her guilt.
May 27, 2016 at 3:23 AM


The jurors said, "we knew she did it but the state did not prove their case..."

begging the question,

How did you know?

Jurors sabotaged the verdict for the hope of 15 minutes.

They have sabotaged justice for many since.

tania cadogan said...

As she continued packing, Mr. Banks said, he asked for one last kiss. She said no and asked him to leave, so he retreated to the open garage to sit on his motorcycle and wait. Soon after, he said, he heard a pop.

“I knew exactly what it was.”


Interesting use of language.

The two neighbors describe the sound for what it was.

What came next was unexpected. “We heard her yell ‘Help,’ and there was one gunshot, and then she yelled ‘Help’ again, and there was a second gunshot,” Ms. Ladley told Mr. Rodgers. After that, silence.

Why does he minimize the sound of a gun going off as a pop rather than the expected sound of a gunshot

Guns don't go pop.
Silencers don't reduce a sound to a pop or even a pfft as so beloved in the movies.
They mute the sound only slightly.


Silencer fired inside a house

As a cop he should and would have recognized the sound of a gunshot and as a cop he would and should have described to the operator and in interviews and statements later the sound of a gunshot.

Training would and should be so embedded that it would be almost automatic.
If he was dealing with a different case and he heard shots fired, he is not going to call it in as "pops heard",he would report it for what it was.

Not only is he minimizing what happened prior to and up to Michelle being killed, he is also minimizing what he heard.

If she committed suicide, why were there two shots and why did she 'use her left hand' when she is right handed?
She would have gone for holding the gun in a way that would have felt comfortable and natural to her.
She wants it to be quick and clean, she is not going to use her weaker hand, especially if she is unfamiliar with the gun as well.

She had told banks she was leaving, she told him to leave whilst she packed and he went into the garage.
Why then, when he was out the room and house and she had time and the freedom to walk out the door, did she commit suicide?
She was the one breaking up with him, not him breaking up with her.
Usually, in cases of suicide over a broken relationship, it is the one being dumped that is the suicide risk as they want to remain in the relationship, did not know they were breaking up, being dumped, not the one who says it is all over.

They argued and then got to the house and it was fine.
No, if they argued over the breaking up, they are going to continue to argue as she tells him to leave whilst she packs.

He is going to be pi55ed because she is taking control away from him.
She is denying him power and control over her.
This is when the woman is most at risk in a DV relationship.
If she leaves, if she takes control away from him, he knows she will start talking.
Even if she does not take him to court alleging abuse and, if married to him, custody of any children, financial support etc, he knows his reputation will be damaged at best and trashed at worst.
His reputation is everything to him, he is a cop, he has power, he is respected by the public and fellow officers (presumably)
If she reveals the truth, that he is an abuser, his reputation nosedives and he could even be demoted or lose his job.
He then becomes just another member of the public albeit a wife beater.

She had no reason to commit suicide.
He had every reason to murder her.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/two-gunshots/

Peter Hyatt said...

"I knew exactly what it was."


911 call: "I think she just shot herself"


Lengthening of time prior to shot:

"She has just shot herself..."

Blown investigation; poor interviewing, and political attempt to cover error.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't see a relationship between Banks and the Sheriff that would have impacted this investigation. This is not a case of nepotism, or 'blue line' defense, as far as sheriff is concerned.

The Sheriff is in this for himself. His department blew the investigation and instead of owning it, he is seeing it only as a political failure; justice be damned.

He is no cop, and he is no man seeking justice. Had he believed that Banks was innocent, he simply could have said that although he sympathizes with the family and feels for them, he stands behind the investigation.

Instead, he goes on the personal attack and insults everyone, including the investigators. One does not call cops "employees" unless he, himself is not a cop, and he sees them as subordinates. Even those in superior positions, who rise to Captain, see themselves as "cops" and brothers in arms.

The shameless polarizing and politicizing is reprehensible.

I am thinking that sheriff is not going to engage Hyatt Analysis Services for training.

Peter