Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Stress of Listening: Tuning Out

Consider how the brain interprets words we hear:

Any single word spoken in English may have 2 or 3 different meanings.  Next, any one of these meanings could have an emotional component (reaction by hearer) to the word, itself, besides the emotional component if the hearer is actually hearing the voice inflection rather than reading the word.  

Next, in a given sentence, we may have between 7 and 25 words, and in a given paragraph, we may have 4 to 7 sentences.  

Each word must be interpreted by the brain, within a sentence, along with the emotional components, and then the sentences must be heard, and in any given answer, an entire paragraph of information must be interpreted for understanding requiring an immediate answer.  

The only way to survive is to dull the brain into getting 'the Reader's Digest version" of what was said.  

In other words, 

dulled listening. 

If the average person were to give strong concentration on the use of each word coming out of a person's mouth, the stress would be too much to bear.  The brain's processing would be on overload and cause exhaustion, which further shuts down the perception. 

Ever meet an incessant talker?

This is the one who seems to never stop talking and has either very low self awareness or simply does not care the toll he or she takes upon the audience (you). 

Anyone in a close relation with an incessant talker knows what it is like.  

In Hollywood, the comedic scenes show characters seeing the incessant talker and running the other way just to avoid the stress. 

Think about it:

a dramatic increase in words that the brain must interpret leads to shutting down and the "Charlie Brown's Teacher Effect" of

"blah, blah, blah, blah and blah..."  expect is sounding like it began with the letter "w" instead.  

Many times, the entire message of the incessant talker is lost.  A marriage to an incessant talker can lead to the purchase and judicious use of earphones, or...

The Solomonic wisdom says "in a multitude of words, there is no lack of sin" as incessant talkers will prove the truth of Solomon's observation.  This can lead to embarrassing or even humiliating events in life which build and can take a toll on one's health and eventually on the relationship.  

Every family has its "crook in the lot" struggles, and you can be guaranteed that the incessant talker will reveal private matters to the detriment of all.  

But in any case, the brain seeks to protect itself by 'lowering the amps' and reducing the processing of words by the overworked and fatigued brain.  When repeated, avoidance steps in.  

In criminal investigations, some clever suspects actually will use incessant talking to take you off track yet, as they run to the tangents, the crime committed remains on the mind, and its avoidance becomes a priority.  This is dealt with in one of two ways:

1.  Let him run knowing that his words will eventually yield important information; 

2.  Let him talk but a short while, and remind him that you are aware of his need to avoid answering questions.  

This decision must be made instinctively by the Interviewer/Investigator and at a time that appears best.  This decision sometimes can be aided by the content of the tangent.  I have used both methods effectively.  

I advise criminal investigators to be mentally prepared to do battle with the incessant talker, who is the exception to the rule of Analytical Interviewing's standard of "do not interrupt."  

Deceptive people are counting on you and I to move into a more severe and self-protecting "dulled listening" status. 

Recall the humorous theft case in which the suspect, being interviewed, rambled on and on about his favorite fishing hole, fishing technique and fishing equipment, while avoiding discussing the theft.  

The tired investigator woke up in the middle of the night and rushed to the suspect's favorite fishing location only to find the missing safe, sunk in shallow water. 

We have seen many such examples of suspects' attempts to move away from the topic at hand, only to trip over it. 

Recall Cindy Anthony's denial of knowing where Caylee's body was dumped when she told media "George and I don't believe, you know, Caylee's in the woods, or anything" as the tiny body lay down the block, in the woods. 

Justin DiPietro's lie that Baby Ayla was kidnapped as he gave us the visual image he had as he worried that she would be found in water:

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with the Waterville Police..." said the deceptive father with the life insurance policy bet against the toddler.  

We get this from training, and specifically, introducing brain pattern recognition; over and over and over until you will "circle pronouns in your head" as someone speaks.  

The commitment to ongoing training is key.  

It always comes and it does not take specific 'effort'; only repetition.  It is like the chess player who does nothing but studies tactics until his brain immediately recognizes the presence of a brutal tactic; something that comes into play in more than 99% of non professional chess games.  He goes on to beat everyone in the neighborhood by this constant repetition of brain recognition. 

Question:  What is the difference  the Major League Pitcher, who throws the ball at 95 mph differ from the Minor League Pitcher who throws at 95 mph but will never advance? 

Answer:   the brain's concentration level. 

 The movement and precise location, where the brain tells the body, and specifically, the arm, wrist, and hands, precisely what motion will put the ball in a precise location.  It only comes from causing the brain pattern recognition to an extreme limit. 

How did Tiger Woods hit a tiny ball into a tiny hole, over and over?  The constancy is not luck. 

Brain concentration with major repetition.  

Statement Analysis formal training and practice combats this and allows you to pick up the key words and phrases most associated with deception during the actual conversation with statement analysis moving naturally to reading analysis and eventually discourse analysis.  

For formal training for you or your department or business, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and put a stop to the contempt of deceivers.  

Here is a rather humorous view from Psychology Today about dealing with a friend who is an incessant talker...It may be fine for social settings, but not for those of us who need information.  The recommendations are what experience may find comical. Most people only find #5 to work.  


Your friend tells you every trite detail of what has transpired since the last time you were together and then, without skipping a breath, reaches further back into the past and tells you stories you've already heard. Your friend's speech is pressured and feels unrelenting.
If you like the person well-enough to want to remain friends, here are five tips for making that lunch easier to digest:
1) Try interrupting periodically
Don't feel shy about changing the topic, or directly asking your friend to slow down or stop for a minute so you can have a turn to speak. Given the situation, it isn't rude or impolite. If you're lucky, you may startle the heck out of your friend, disrupt a pattern of one-way conversation, and seize an opportunity to speak and be heard.
2) Be cautious about inadvertently encouraging more of the same
When you're totally bored, don't feign interest by asking questions or giving the yakker other types of positive feedback, perhaps in the form of head nods or ah-ha's. If you look disinterested or glance at your watch, the talker may slow down.
3) Don't label or call the person names
Yes, your friend is probably self-centered, narcissistic and insecure---but if you mention this, the person will only become more defensive, and it may exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Remember, you're at lunch, not at therapy or a coaching session and you have the right to expect reciprocity.
4) Identify "not being able to get a word in" as a problem for YOU
If you are truly a good friend, tell your friend bluntly---but kindly---that you are feeling frustrated when you get together. Tell your friend that you need and want more give and take in your conversations. If you're lucky and your friendship is solid, the person may have a glimmer of self-insight.
5) If you can't change your friend's behavior, you may have to change your relationship
If your friend continues to drone on each time you get together, which is the most likely outcome, you either have to accept the person as-is---or downgrade the relationship: The incessant talker may actually be more tolerable and entertaining in small doses; or else, the intensity of the person's chatter might be diluted proportionately if you get together within a group of common friends instead of in a twosome.

If you do decide to call it quits, you'll recoup time to nurture other friendships with people with whom you can have more meaningful and balanced conversations. One more tip, don't' worry. The friend who talks too much will probably find someone else to listen. When someone talks incessantly, there's always a new audience within easy reach---friends, family, or colleagues.


John mcgowan said...


Brock Turner Judge Removed From New Sexual Assault Case Due to Complaints
by Ronn Blitzer | 9:45 am, June 15th, 2016

Judge Aaron Persky, who presided over the Brock Turner sexual assault trial, was removed from a case on Tuesday, after prosecutors complained, Reuters reported. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said he did not trust Persky’s ability to fairly hear the case, mentioning the six-month jail sentence Persky gave Turner after a jury convicted him of three felony sexual offenses.

“We lack confidence that Judge Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing,” Rosen said. The new case involves a male nurse who is accused of sexually assaulting a female patient who had been anesthetized prior to surgery. A new judge has already been assigned.

Many feel Turner’s sentence was too light, considering that prosecutors recommended six years in prison. Turner sexually assault an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. Judge Persky cannot comment on the case at this time, as Turner is appealing the decision.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Klein Investigations and Consulting
25 mins ·
Public Information Release :
In May of 2016 Vernal DeOrr Kunz and Jessica Mitchell gave a Television interview. Parts of that interview were not aired. Today we are releasing a 9 second portion of the video to the public.

Ashley Bowen said "Deorr tells Jessica to say HAS instead of HAD. He's coaching her....telling her not to talk about it in past tense".


Watch for the Micro Expression of fear flash over her face.

tania cadogan said...

Thanks John.
He is showing awareness of statement analysis, that his words are being noted and analyzed and his deception and involvement are being revealed.

Anonymous said...

John McGowan - I am a member of a close Facebook group that posted the 9-second video. It is very obvious that Jessica Mitchell is upset, offended or even insulted at the fact that she was corrected. Ironically, the correction is helping her "maintain her innocence" - except to SA readers like us.

Tania Cadogan - I completely agree. I don't trust pre-taped interviews where the entire recording is not aired, for reasons such as these. Can you imagine if the local news outlets released that interview unedited in the first place? It would be mayhem. They are doing DeOrr Jr. a complete injustice by aiding the parents with editing.


Anonymous said...

John McGowan,

Did you hear that Jessica Mitchell is already remarried and is now known as Jessica Anderson? There are also rumors (from credible sources) that she moved to Las Vegas (unconfirmed by LE).

Her son has been missing barely 11 months and she has already, quite literally, moved on. If he was truly abducted as she claims, that behavior isn't expected. It would only be expected if she knew he was dead and had to move on with her life.


Anonymous said...

One of my friend's is a total Obama lover and believes everything out of his mouth. I commented on an Obama sppech video she posted on Facebook saying he is a liar, and here is her response...

"He's not even making a specific statement about what's going on. He's just trying to do his job and tell people that the words they are using don't define what's going on. Because it doesn't matter what you call it. It's all violent garbage."

Anyone care to analyze her comment? LOL (Her level of intelligence is starting to make me wonder why I even still have her on my Facebook friends list).

Anonymous said...

Off topic: Am I evil for wondering how the child in Orlando
was snatched by an alligator and now that they have recovered
an intact body, I'm interested in how the body remained intact
and there are no witness' so far except for a lifeguard who saw
the boy about 10 feet out? The father is scratched up by the
alligator, but a toddler's body is intact? I feel awful...
am I evil for questioning the narrative?

Anonymous said...

How appropriate for Vernal Kunz's name to come up in the comments section under a post on incessant talkers.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude said...

'When someone talks incessantly, there's always a new audience within easy reach---friends, family, or colleagues.'

It is humorous - whoever wrote that article doesn't know an incessant talker. You can't mention anything much to a truly incessant talker because you literally aren't able to get a word in edgeways. If you do manage (during that occassional second when he has to draw a breath), it will be ignored or dismissed because whatever you say is of next to no interest. If, after an hour, you can't suppress a yawn, feel drawn to stare at the floor or into space, at your watch or at the clock on the wall, it will make no difference - the monologue will continue.

Things not to say:
'I've lost the thread...'
'I stopped listening a while ago...'
'I don't agree with that...'

To make any of these interjections is to invite a comprehensive recap.

Only when all that was intended to be said has been said will the speaker fall silent, yawn, look at his watch, and say he had better be off now. IME. :)

Anonymous said...

I found more details. This article says that there were witnesses to the event.

I may have been mistaken, but I thought that I read somewhere else that no one else
saw the actual gator at that time.

John mcgowan said...

Hi -KC

do you have any links?


Vicki said...

Sir Cliff Richard's full statement:

"After almost two years under police investigation I learnt today that they have finally closed their enquiries.

I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point.

Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close.

Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly.

Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent.

This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one.

Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged.

I was named before I was even interviewed, and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'.

It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people.

There have been numerous occasions in recent years where this has occurred, and I feel very strongly that no innocent person should be treated in this way.

I know the truth and in some peoples' eyes the CPS's announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem.

My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS's policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence.

How can there be evidence for something that never took place?

This is also a reason why people should never be named publicly until they have been charged unless there are exceptional circumstances.

To my fans and members of the public, to the press and media, all of whom continued to show me such encouraging and wonderful support, I would like to say thank you - it would have been so much harder without you."

Hey Jude said...

The alligator attack was witnessed:

Ben Wilson, who is visiting Orlando from Indiana, saw the terrifying scene from the balcony of his Grand Floridian room – and said the attack unfolded in less than 30 seconds. Within a minute, the gator and the boy were gone.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Nic said...

One of my profs said to us, "God gave us to ears and one mouth because we are suppose to listen twice as often as we speak."

Anonymous said...

John McGowan...

I can only provide her Facebook profile link. The Vegas rumor has not been confirmed yet.


Hey Jude said...

I like the photos - that is how I feel in the company of an incessant talker - as though my mouth might as well be taped shut or non existent - there's no desire on the part of the listener to have a conversation, an incessant talker only (really) wants a captive audience.

Anonymous said...

Anon @5:20

I read that alligators store their deceased prey until it rots. Then they return to consume it.

John mcgowan said...

Thanks, -KC


Re Cliff Richards statement

"I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point."

Note the dropped pronoun lacking commitment to "co-operating fully". This is bolstered by the qualifier "fully".
The word "fully" tells us that there is, in his mind, some other level of cooperation. This makes it sensitive. We don't know if the sensitivity is because of him, police, or something else. Also note the distancing language "with the investigation. My guess is, is that he was less than " fully co-operative"

"Nevertheless, I am obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close."

"obviously" is to take for granted.


He introduces the word "vile", what is definition of this? Is he parroting words back what he has heard or read. If not, it concerns me.

"Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent."

Note the passivity to "speak out", whom was he "under pressure" from? If as he says he is "innocent" why didn't he address this. Would you not scream from the roof tops, i didn't do it. Would you not tell your lawyer and so on, f**K you i'm not taking this, people need to know i didn't do it (accusation(s) If it was "easy for him to do", why didn't he?

Note his denial.

This is a prime opportunity to issue an RD.

An RD has three components. less than three or more than, is considered unreliable. It is not to say it isn't true, in SA, it is unreliable.

1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
3. The allegation specifically answered.

1. I
2. Didn't/did not
3."molest" xyz (the accuser(s)/person(s) etc)

Here is his denial.

"I have never molested anyone in my life"

The word "never" is not to say "i didn't/did not", it spans time and doesn't speak of a specific event, time, allegation(s). He does use the word "molested" (accusation). Which is interesting, yet can not say i didn't/did not.

"I have never molested anyone in my life"

Note the plural "anyone"

"This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one."

He introduces the word "vile" this maybe what was said by media (social or otherwise). Then the word "molested" is used. Again this maybe reflective language. Take these two words into account ("vile, molested) he then introduces the word "fumbling". Note too the pronoun "my" taking ownership.

I have to stop here. My LT keys are sticking (it's took me yonks to type this, lol) I'm going to "try" and clean my keyboard. I will be back to finish this analysis (hopefully)

Anonymous said...

John Mcgowan...

RE the word "vile" - I started thinking about the different meanings of the word. It is not a word regularly used. I would expect "disgusting" or "false" or "horrible" before I expected "Vile". One of the definitions is low, trivial or mediocre, such as a "vile peasant". I wonder if he was thinking of his victim at the time of his statement, and that the victim was just this vile creature, not worthy of having their name mentioned in his denial (I did not molest John Doe).

RE the word "fumbling" - He was accused of sexual abusing young boys in the 80s. What do young, maturing boys do? They fumble about as they get used to their growing feet, legs, appetites, changing voice, etc. Again, maybe he was reminiscing when speaking about the accusations, remembering the boys "fumbling around"

MORE statements from Cliff Richards with citations:

"I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'. It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people. There have been numerous occasions in recent years where this has occurred, and I feel very strongly that no innocent person should be treated in this way. I know the truth and in some people's eyes the CPS' announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem."



Hey Jude said...

A disappointing statement from Sir Cliff - I saw him as a kid at a Luis Palau crusade. I probably only went to listen to Cliff, and I came away all born again and made anew, though it would not have been for the first time. Still, life seems relatively simple when you're sixteen.

I was just comparing the 'What we Believe' page on Luis Palau's website with Davey Blackburn's 'Our Beliefs' page on his Resonate Church website. Davey has a disturbed theology, to say the least - interestingly, there is no mention of the resurrection of the dead (just some vague notion of heaven and an overly enthusiastic description of hell) - quite an omission. The Resonate page is as written by a teenager who has learned some very ugly theology - it's sad to think that's the path of belief down which he is leading others. He's also deluded in imagining he is on a par with someone like Luis Palau, all poised, just waiting for the world stage to open to him. Poor Resonaters. :-/

John mcgowan said...

I've cleaned my sticky keyboard, lol. Fingers crossed it stays this way.

I posted this back in April 2015

Again no RD. Note the similar language. This may suggest it was scripted for him?

Note too "assaulted" which changes to "molested" above.

Sir Cliff Richard waits at Barbados airport for friends... as pal says the veteran singer is 'distraught' following sex abuse claims

Sir Cliff Richard is enjoying time away from England this April, and if his friend Bonnie Lythgoe is to be believed, then there's a good reason why,
For the veteran singer's house was raided last August after sex abuse claims were made against him, and he his still under police investigation.
Sir Cliff cut a forlorn figure at Barbados airport shortly as he waited for his friends to arrive on a flight from America.

Scroll down for video

His friend, Bonnie Lythgoe, 65, said: 'I know Cliff well and I have just been with him on holiday, he's so distraught and so, so upset.
'Cliff has never seen this person. He doesn't know who this person is. That's the sadness of all of this. He will never know.'

Last year, Richard issued a statement vehemently denying any of the claims made against him.
I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone,' the singer said

'I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from. The police have not disclosed details to me. I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail.
'I have co-operated fully with the police and I will continue to do so.

'Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false it would not be ­appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon.'

The initial allegation came from an alleged assault on a boy at an evangelical event in Sheffield, in 1985.
Sir Cliff has not been charged but an investigation continues into what the police describe as multiple accusations.

South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable David Crompton, said in a letter to chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz last Februrary: 'This ­investigation has increased significantly in size since its inception.
'Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers are aware there is more than one allegation.
'Police are in very regular contact with Sir Cliff ­Richard's lawyers. Typically this involves a verbal update about once a fortnight. We have not written directly to Sir Cliff Richard.

Read more:

Hey Jude said...

I don't know, though, it sounds quite convincing - 'I have never in my life, assaulted anyone' -'I know,it's not a reliable denial, but it sounds and seems as if it is or could be truthful - I think it's the rest of it which raises most doubts. Are they even his own word, though - or those of a lawyer? How does that work, if he didn't write the statement himself?

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Hey jude

he may very well be "innocent"

It's what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. It had decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute".

That to me says there was a least some weight to the allegations. Just not enough to prosecute.

I maybe wrong and he is "innocent" of said allegations. Look him up and see whom he is associates with, where he visits etc. cliff (kitty) richard. It doesn't bode well.

Anonymous said...

Vernal, baby Deorr's father moved to Vegas. Jessica put on a ring and changed her name on Facebook. Is that a white trash wedding? Anywho, I would really love to hear your thoughts on the coaching Vernal tried to do Peter!

Hey Jude said...

Hi, John - I'm all downhearted now - it might only be strong rumour, but as it includes Elm Guest House, and whether he is alleged to have done anything there or not - just even that he is named as one of those who went there... well, no more 'Mistletoe and Wine' in my Christmas playlist - no Cliff 2017 calendar either. I suppose he always was too good to be true - that's what my grandmother said about him. :-/

Anonymous said...

Thank-you, Jude.
The story about the Orlando boy and the alligator are horrific. There is a lot of
new information coming out from many sources. Many of the descriptions vary and are being clarified as time goes on. When I can't focus on facts, I am forced to think about a father and mother watching their hearts being ripped from their souls. As a parent in that situation, I might never be able to find my mind again.

tania cadogan said...

I remain confident that the truth will prevail.

This got me thinking.

if he was innocent of all the accusations, wouldn't it be better to say "I know the truth will prevail

An innocent person would be certain the truth would prevail as they didn't do said crime.

To be confident allows for something else to happen, in this case guilty.
An innocent person would know there is nothing to implicate them, a confident person allows for something to implicate them.

Confidence is not certainty.

Does this make sense?

Anon "I" said...

Tanya, I am not familiar with the Sir Cliff case. However, my father was
falsely accused of something and later heard the real perpetrators bragging
about how they outsmarted the authorities. It was my father who was taken to
court and he lost a considerable amount for a lawyer's failure to defend him
properly before a judge with a bias, legal fees, unfair fine, property that
was confiscated (rendering him unable to work) and improperly stored (rendering
said property useless when it was released to him 9 months later.) I don't
think he would have said that he was confident the truth would prevail. It
was from his personal experience that the court system was flawed and unfair
because he was punished even when he told his lawyer the truth. This is not
to say anything about Sir Cliff's situation, but to suggest that the lack of
faith in the justice system could possibly warrant a (even guarded) "confidence"
minus the I "know" for sure stance.

Anonymous said...

The pressure on a person falsely accused may affect their statements due to psychological mental stain. Does truth always prevail? Are no innocent people in prison? Are not some guilty & innocent coached before trial just due to appearance and expression? Being on trial is not anatural environment. Must be very difficult even for the innocent

Anonymous said...

I meant mental Strain, not stain.

Hey Jude said...

Anon @ 8.53 - I cannot imagine the horror of seeing your baby taken by an alligator, how you would ever be able to get that image out of your mind, or be able to stop reliving his terror - hopefully it was quick and he didn't see it coming or know what was happening.

I also can't imagine allowing a two-year old to be ten feet out in a lagoon in Florida (quite different to the early claim that he was in a playpen on the beach - confused story, but maybe it was not the parents' account). Even without signs, don't people, even tourists, just think, you never know, there just might be a gator - they get everywhere? Don't go in the least, don't let your little baby in or too near the water. What's a two year old going to be able to do against an alligator - there just might be one? I don't know, people can be so casual, even foolish around and about wildlife in Florida - it's not all Disney, even at Disney, apparently. Poor baby, poor parents - at least his body is recovered and still intact - that's sure to help, somewhat.

Anon "I" said...

Anon at 10:26.... I was young when this happened to my father. It dragged on and on. Dad was so angry he was even accused and especially when he discovered what actually transpired. Financially wise, it was devastating. His lawyer was chummy with the judge, but it in no way was to my father's benefit. Dad had no knowledge of court procedures and they did not let him talk in court or put him on the stand. Dad was honest, even to his detriment. It was so wrong.

Hey Jude at 4:28 am.... The autopsy DID show trauma/puncture marks. The "intact" description gave me the wrong impression, so I had a lot of questions and the answers kept changing and evolving. As for us, our kids were watched like a hawk although I am sure that sometimes angels guided them when we blinked (kids are so fast). This might have happened to anybody, though.

Even if there were no gators, there could have been snakes. There would be so many signs one could not see a lagoon if they warned of every threat, however large or small.... snakes, mosquitoes, spiders, wasps, lightening, meteors... A fence is not going to stop a gator, but it would have limited the children from the most likely lurking places. These parents will never be the same. They were watching him closely and had no control over nature. Disney was diligent, but perhaps, not diligent enough after previous warnings. The chairs placed on the beach did make it seem safe to visitors. It's traumatic and sad all around. I just pray the little guy didn't suffer for long.

It has been a rough week in FL. I knew of Christina Grimmie's music from youtube. The nightclub murders are on my mind and a gator snatching a innocent child is too much to process.