Friday, August 26, 2016

Jonathan Harris Doesn't Remember Murdering Nichole White

Statement Analysis is not guess work, nor should it ever be relegated to such. 

Jonathan Harris beat a mother of two, Nichole White, to death and pled guilty to second degree murder.  He had met her on a dating site.  

He now faces sentencing at the end of September and is wants to change his plea.  The following is an interview by a member of the press.  It is an insult to the family of Nichole White that only increases their pain.  

Analysis Question:  Is he telling the truth?
Although this may appear obvious, we do not simply use 'smell test' mentality because if we are correct 9 times of 10, the one error is not acceptable.  This is a scientific process which means repeated implementation should result in similar findings.  

Analysis Question:  If he is lying, will he reveal his motive?

 IR:  “Did you kill Nicole White?” 

Harris: “I don’t know.”

Paul Ekman said he believed "I don't know" was a close second to "I don't remember" as the most common deceptive answer in court.  "I don't know" is obviously a deception and can only be appropriately viewed in a  case where one did not know if one's actions were the finality of death; such as in a multiple assailant case, or even in the case where  a man gave a Sheriff's daughter the drugs that led to her overdose.  

*If you were to claim, "deception indicated" based upon the statistics of "I don't know", you would likely be correct.  But this is not Statement Analysis.  Your conclusion must have a basis of which can be applied to case after case.  While claiming "deception indicated" each time without proving the assertion, eventually, error would ensue.  

Statement Analysis is not passing the straight face test or any other intuition.  It must be based upon principle and the analyst must enslave himself to the sample provided.  

White disappeared while she and Harris were on a date in June of 2015. Harris met the 29-year-old mother of two through an online dating website. She was last seen with Harris at a Spanaway bar. Her body was found days later wrapped in a tarp in a wooded area near Kapowsin Lake. 
She had been stomped and beaten to death.
In the jailhouse interview, Harris repeated his claim that he didn’t know whether or not he killed White.

IR:  “How can you say that?”  “How do you not know?”

Avoid compound questions.   His answer, to explain 'why', is what gives us information.  

Does he believe his own words that he is not certain if he did this?  He does not make us wait for the answer:  

Harris:   Well, because it’s still a case that’s going on. There’s no determinings  or anything."

Here is his explanation: court case and legal determination.   This is his explanation as to why he now says he does not know:  legal ramification. 

This shows that the subject knows what he is doing.  
IR:  “Do you believe you may have killed Nicole White?” 

Harris:   “I don’t know,”

Whether he "may" have killed her is within his response:  
Harris:  “That’s not for me to determine.  It’s for the judge and prosecutors to say allegedly if I did or did not.”

It is interesting to see the hypothesis begins with guilt, "...if I did it" before "did not."   
IR:  “But you can’t say that you didn’t?” 

It is important to note that the IR asked this question in the negative (double).  In parroting language, we expect him to respond to this, also in the negative, of "didn't", using the IR's own language.  This is a poorly worded question but the answer still gives us information:  
“I can’t say that I did and I can’t say that I did not,”

The same order exists here but it is even more important because it overruled the easier parroting or repeating back of the question.  This means 'more effort' was made by the subject and in the same Solomonic fashion of the custody case, order is paramount.  

Order speaks to priority. 

  When one says they "can't" answer a question, it is an indication of limitation.  Here, the context tells us the limitation:  rather than saying whether he did it or not, he willfully limits himself to letting the court say so.  This is likely the advice of counsel.

In the motion Harris filed to change his plea, he claimed his public defender forced him to plead guilty against his will. He wrote, my attorney, Mark Quigley, came up to the jail and yes, he threatened my life."

Note the full social introduction of Mark Quigley, written with the possessive pronoun "my" shows a good relationship.  This is incongruent with his claim.  We now see his claim has further weakness:  

He threatened, pretty much he threatened my life, says if I didn’t sign this I’d pretty much spend my whole life in jail, and that’s, you can’t say that to somebody,” Harris said.

We now know the 'threat' and how it was against his 'life'; his attorney told him the legal consequences of being found guilty. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Jonathan Harris is not only lying about not remembering killing his victim, he reveals his motive for his lie and is willing to lie about his attorney. 


Tania Cadogan said...

Apparently, now being told the consequences of your crime by your attorney s considered to be a threat against the subject.

If he had not been told the consequences of his crime by his attorney then he would have claimed ineffective counsel and asked to change his plea or, more likely asked for a retrial and a new attorney.

Given his crime he would be lucky not to face the death penalty, is this what he refers to regarding threats to his life?

Did his attorney tell hm if he didn't take a guilty plea deal of 2nd degree murder and they found him guilty of first degree murder, he would or could face the death penalty?

“He threatened, pretty much he threatened my life, says if I didn’t sign this I’d pretty much spend my whole life in jail, and that’s, you can’t say that to somebody,” Harris said.

It seems he didn't want his attorney to tell him the brutal truth.
What did he want his attorney to tell him?
if you go to court they could find you not guilty or if they find you guilty 20 years or so and then you get out at worst and at best, they buy whatever defense you have and sentence you to a couple of years, a bucket load of probation and a nice fine.

He sounds like a petulant child who can't get his own way, no doubt blaming everyone else for his problems when he gets caught out.

John Mc Gowan said...

He threatened, pretty much he threatened my life, says if I didn’t sign this I’d pretty much spend my whole life in jail.

He threatened"

Pronoun past tense.

""He threatened my life"

Pronoun past tense.

"says if I didn’t sign this"

Dropped pronoun present tense.

Is this relevant given he is lying about his attorney?

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Most, if not all, murders found guilty by a court of law continue to proclaim their innocence from their jail cells up to their last breaths. I don't believe I've ever heard a murder say, "well, if the court says I killed her, then I killed her", which is essentially what Harris is claiming.

Nic said...

Missing Melbourne mum Karen Ristevski: Crucial new clues emerge in police probe

THE mobile phone of missing mum Karen ­Ristevski was tracked to 40km northwest of her ­Melbourne home hours after she vanished.

The Herald Sun can reveal crucial new clues as police continue to probe her June 29 disappearance.

It is understood mobile phone data shows that Mrs Ristevski’s phone “pinged” — was detected by transmitter towers — on the ­Calder Highway near ­Gisborne that day.

On the same day, the phone of her husband, Borce, was pinged on the Calder near Diggers Rest, about 20km northwest of their home in Avondale Heights.

Data also reveals that his phone was switched off for about two hours on June 29.

When asked what he was doing on the day his wife ­disappeared, Mr Ristevski told detectives last month he had forgotten to mention that he had driven her 2004 Mercedes-Benz coupe that day.

He claimed its fuel gauge had been faulty, so he took it for a spin up the Calder.

When he hit a bump the fault corrected itself, so he had then returned home, he told police.

[end snip]

If I recall, when this story first broke, the husband's statement made it sound like Karen Ristevski did not the house of her own accord.

John Mc Gowan said...

Nics, OT

Uber to check on Borce Ristevski car trips

Uber has launched an urgent ­internal investigation into whether Borce Ristevski, the husband of missing Melbourne woman Karen Ristevski, drove for the ride-sharing company on the day his wife disappeared.

Internal emails show executives at Uber were yesterday scrambling to contain any fallout after The Weekend Australian approached the company with questions about Mr Ristevski’s movements on the day his wife was last seen, nine weeks ago.

Amid mounting fears for Mrs Ristevski’s welfare, detectives this week renewed efforts to find the fashion designer, mounting a search of rural land northwest of Melbourne.

The Weekend Australian can reveal that Mr Ristevski — the last person to see her alive — has hired law firm Stary Norton ­Halphen, headed by one of Melbourne’s top criminal defence lawyers, Rob Stary, to represent him. Mr Ristevski’s solicitor, Katarina Ljubicic, said yesterday her client gave two long statements to police soon after Mrs Ristevski went missing on June 29, the second of which was to answer questions raised by police following their initial ­investigations.

Sources familiar with the police investigation said detectives had asked Mr Ristevski about his movements on the day, including where he drove and what he did.

“He’s not been asked to make another statement and he’s fully co-operated with police,” Ms Ljubicic said.

She declined to comment on Mr Ristevski’s work driving for Uber or the content of his ­statements.

Missing persons unit detectives Graham Hamilton and Tim Ryan also declined to comment on Mr Ristevski’s statements or the ongoing investigation, as did Victoria Police spokeswoman Melissa Seach. But a source with knowledge of the investigation said that, in Mr Ristevski’s second statement, given at Victoria Police’s Spencer Street complex, he revealed he went for a drive in his wife’s car 30 minutes after she left the family home in the northwestern suburb of Avondale Heights.

Mr Ristevski, who did not ­answer calls yesterday, has said his wife left the house about 10am after an argument over takings at the couple’s shop, Bella Bleu, the previous day.

The source said Mr Ristevski returned to the couple’s home, which backs on to the Maribyr­nong River, about noon, and ­received a request to drive for Uber later in the afternoon.

However, it is not clear whether he took the job.

Uber communications manager Mike Scott declined to confirm or deny Mr Ristevski was a driver for the service. “While we can’t make comment on any specific investigations, it is Uber’s practice to work co-operatively with law-enforcement agencies and assist with ­inquiries as they arise,” he said.

Internal Uber emails reveal the tech company immediately launched a probe after The Weekend Australian started asking questions yesterday morning. “We will dig into this to see however we will not take any external facing actions,” Uber’s Australian manager of driver operations, Mike Capp, said in an email to head of policy Brad Kitschke, obtained by The Weekend Australian.

The family is deeply divided over Mrs Ristevski’s fate. Mr Ristevski’s brother, Vasko, this week told Melbourne’s Herald Sun he believed she was still alive, and might have gone to China on a fake passport. A source with knowledge of the family’s business activities said that in previous years she was a frequent traveller to Hong Kong to buy clothes for their fashion group.

In addition to the Bella Bleu boutique and label, the Ristevski family ran fashion companies Blue Laser Jean Co, which collapsed in 2000 owing almost $600,000, and Warrant, which owed more than $800,000 when it was wound up in 2012 after a legal dispute.

Family members said Mrs Ristevski would not have left the country on a false passport.

Nic said...

Interesting, John! I was following your o/t because you've been so diligent keeping us abreast. I find this case fascinating. Also fascinating is was the husband's refusal to answer the reporter's question whether he killed his wife.

Then I read this:

When questioned on July 8, Mr Ristevski, 52, denied any involvement in her disappearance. He has since stopped co-operating with police. The couple’s 21-year-old daughter, Sarah, is also understood to have ceased helping police, in support of her father.

I wonder if this is her own idea or if she was asked to stand in solidarity with her dad? Wouldn't she want to do everything possible to find her mom? Wouldn't she question her dad why he wouldn't want to help find her mom?

I find the family dynamics remarkable.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Nic

when was that published?. I'm unable to access the page. They want me to subscribe.

Anonymous said...

tania cadogan said... "He sounds like a petulant child who can't get his own way, no doubt blaming everyone else for his problems when he gets caught out."

Perfect description of entitled, unaccountable sociopaths - the permanent ethics of a petulant child, without the child's ability to learn and develop morals.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...August 26, 2016 at 11:33 AM
"Interesting. Most, if not all, murders found guilty by a court of law continue to proclaim their innocence from their jail cells up to their last breaths. I don't believe I've ever heard a murder say, "well, if the court says I killed her, then I killed her", which is essentially what Harris is claiming.

That's a great point. Fascinating that he actually said that!

Nic said...

Hi John,

I see it was posted 5 hours ago (via the cache). I can't access it anymore, either. This story must be gaining a lot of attention if the Herald Sun made it part of their paid subscription access.

Capitalism lives. :0)

I googled the video wherein the father is asked if he killed his wife and read the comments (via an older Daily Mail article . Commentators were upset the reporter asked him if he killed his wife in front of the daughter. One of them actually remarked how he behaved with "great dignity" when refusing to address the question.

IMO, I don't think his restraint was "dignified". He should have been outraged and just nipped [it] in the bud and answered the question directly.

I watched the video. He didn't even side glance the reporter. His reaction was stoic.

Nic said...

I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between a lien and a caveat. Both revolve around money, though a caveat is when you cannot transfer the real estate into someone else's name. I'm confused whose name the business is under. Reporting eludes she was the owner but they were arguing about the "takings". I wonder if he is a partner. She disappeared with more than $800.00 on her person. Why would she go for a walk to clear her head with more than $800 on her person?

Anon "I" said...

Peter, in the anticipated post regarding DB, are you in a position that you are no
longer able to discuss it?

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

France set themselves up for humiliation. Staged or not. Police with rifle forcing harmless woman to partially disrobe on beach in public. The whole world seen it. Who are the decision makers? Rebuked by the whole world.

John Mc Gowan said...

That's interesting, Nic.

In the article i posted

"“He’s not been asked to make another statement and he’s fully co-operated with police"Ljubicic said. Ljubicic being his solicitor.

The addition of "fully" in "co-operating" "with" the "police" shows sensitivity. We would expect the husband of a missing wife to co-operate. If they weren't asked "is he co-operating" and they offered up this statement, it is unnecessary information making it important. It is often used when somebody is "co-operating" in small doses. Add in the addition of "with Police", "with" being distance, it heightens the sensitivity of co-operation.
I hope iv'e explained that well. I got a bit confused myself. lol.

It is also in the past tense. So isn't he "co-operating" anymore?

Nic said...

What happens to a caveat if the person against whom the caveat was issued dies? For example, in the Ristevski case, a caveat was placed on the home because of dispute around business debt. If Bella Bleu was Mrs Ristevski's business, in her name, and the home was also in her name, if she dies, does the caveat die as well? i.e., would inheritance law trump business law and the house automatically fall to the husband (indemnity from caveat)? In which case, the estate would simply sell off the business assets and inventory, pay what they could to the creditors and be done with it?

Nic said...

John said:
It is also in the past tense. So isn't he "co-operating" anymore?

Maybe through his lawyer? :0)

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Anon "I" said...
Peter, in the anticipated post regarding DB, are you in a position that you are no
longer able to discuss it?

Hi Anon "I", Peter said he's been under the weather. That and he has been working on paring down the post.

Nic said...

Mr. Ristevski said they were arguing about "takings". Why would they be arguing about that? It's a simple accounting procedure done at the end of the month, albeit a very important one especially if a company, that appears to have been a franchise at one time, was looking at possible bankruptcy. Unless one of them suggested some creative accounting be done showing a few items were returned and the money pocketed? That would be a big no-no, especially considering the financial/business problems they were facing, the ensuing scrutiny -- and something I would debate strongly against doing.


Takings is the amount of sales realized by a business. This figure is also known as the "top line," as it is found on the very first line of a typical corporate income statement.

Takings equals the total cash received in exchange for products sold or services delivered. To arrive at the net cash received, subtract returns from gross sales. Net sales can be accurately determined only after the return window on sold merchandise is closed. For example, if you sell clothing with a 30-day, full-refund policy and wish to calculate net sales for the month of March, you must wait until the end of April, as products sold in March can still be returned for a refund until the end of April. At that time, all returns with original sales dates that fell between March 1 and March 31 must be subtracted from total March sales to arrive at the takings realized in March.

Nic said...

Upon researching "caveat (improper dealings)" in Western Australia, I discovered that this is something that is lodged by the owner of the property to protect themselves from "fraud". I guess it also protects them from creditors? It isn't easy removing the caveat, the terms are strict; however, one of the ways cited to have it withdrawn is: In the case of deceased owner(s) Survivorship and Transmission. This is interesting because a caveat has a time limit, so once the time is up, the property would be vulnerable against creditors? Unless it could be transferred under "survivorship transmission" and then it wouldn't be part of any "dispute resolution" anymore?$file/CIB208.pdf

Nic said...


Karen Ristevski's husband 'took over her business just before she mysteriously disappeared from their Melbourne home’

The husband of missing woman Karen Ristevski took over her business only four months before she mysteriously disappeared from their Melbourne home.

The couple’s financial history is littered with failed business endeavors and allegations of insolvent trading, The Weekend Australian reported.

Paperwork filed with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission in March show Ms Ristevski's company, Warrant Brands, is one in a series of eclectic business ventures that she entered into with her husband Borce Ristevski, including failed efforts to sell pecan nuts to China and to sell clothing using the name of former Australian tennis player Mark Philippoussis.

Mr Ristevski had taken control of Warrant Brands, which is linked to his wife’s Bella Bleu fashion label, as the sole trader in February, the publication reported.

Mr Ristevski previously ran a business with a similar name - Warrant, which was closed by the Victorian Supreme Court in 2012. The liquidators assigned to the court alleged that there was some evidence of insolvent trading.

He was also a director at the company Korse International, which is believed to have been formed to sell Australian pecan nuts to China.

This venture fell through after a dispute over an alleged $100,00 loan Korse made to Warrant. Mr Ristevski left Korse in late 2011.

Warrant was also used to explore selling a clothing line using tennis star Mark Philippoussis' name, but it is believed his manager refused to proceed with the deal, The Weekend Australian reported.

Mr Ristevski denies his family is heavily in debt and has defended his financial position.

Ms Ristevski's disappearance has been described by police as 'highly irregular’

The 47-year-old mother was last seen by her family after she walked out of their luxury Avondale Heights home in Oakley Drive, in Melbourne's north-west, about 10am on Wednesday June 29.

Mrs Ristevski reportedly had $850 in cash when she disappeared after an argument with her husband about till takings at the Bella Bleu shop.

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

The husband appears to be associated not just with on-going "disputes", but "disputes"/allegations dating all the way back to 2011.

Nic said...


A chilling new video from ISIS shows a British boy and four other children executing prisoners in cold blood in Syria.
The grotesque nine-minute video is believed to have been recorded recently in the ISIS capital of Raqqa, in Syria, and shows the organisation is becoming even more brutal as it retreats into its heartland.
The video shows five boys - believed to be from Britain, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and Uzbekistan, wielding handguns and wearing the desert camouflage.


ISIS has been increasingly using child soldiers - known as the 'Cubs of the Caliphate' amid speculation it is running low on manpower as it retreats from positions in Syria and Iraq and falls back on its stronghold, around Raqqa.
The Quilliam Foundation reported this year that around 50 British children are 'growing up on jihad' and being groomed to become ISIS fighters.

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


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

The attorney for Wisconsin inmate Steven Avery, who was featured in the hit Netflix documentary series 'Making a Murderer', filed a motion Friday seeking permission to perform extensive scientific tests on evidence she believes will show he's innocent.

Prosecutors believe Avery killed 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach in his family's Manitowoc County salvage yard in 2005.

A jury convicted him in 2007 and he was sentenced to life. Avery insists the authorities framed him.

His attorney, Kathleen Zellner, told reporters outside the Manitowoc County courthouse Friday that she wants to date blood and DNA found at the scene to see if it was planted.

She promised the results will show that Avery isn't guilty and that someone else killed Halbach, although she declined to say who did it.

'The most reassuring thing is that we are going to get to the bottom of who killed Teresa Halbach,' Zellner said. 'And we firmly believe that we will establish it was not Steven Avery.'

The Wisconsin Department of Justice is handling post-conviction activity in Avery's case on behalf of county prosecutors.

A spokesman for the agency didn't immediately respond to an email Friday afternoon.

Avery, now 54, was charged in November 2005 with the sexual assault and killing of Halbach, a photographer who disappeared that Halloween after traveling to the salvage yard to shoot photos for a car magazine.

Investigators found her charred remains in a burn pit in the yard.

Avery and his then 16-year-old nephew, Brendan Dassey, lived on the property.

A jury in 2007 convicted Avery of being a party to first-degree intentional homicide and a judge sentenced him to life in prison.

He was acquitted of a charge of mutilating a corpse and prosecutors dismissed counts of sexual assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment.

Later that year, a separate jury convicted Dassey of being party to first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse and sexual assault.

He, too, was sentenced to life.

The case fascinated the public. Avery rose to fame in 2003 when he was released from prison after spending 18 years behind bars for rape; a DNA test showed he didn't assault the woman.

The case raised questions about eyewitness reliability and illustrated the power of DNA testing.

Avery contended police framed him for Halbach's death because the rape exoneration embarrassed them and he had a $36 million wrongful conviction lawsuit pending against Manitowoc County.

That lawsuit collapsed when he was arrested in Halbach's death.

Avery has alleged that investigators planted blood taken from him during the rape case and planted Halbach's DNA at the scene.

He argued in an appeal that he should have been allowed to blame others for Halbach's death, that police illegally searched his trailer and that a judge improperly replaced a juror during deliberations.

A state appeals court rejected those arguments in 2011.

Avery and Dassey burst back into the public consciousness late last year after Netflix aired 'Making a Murderer.'

The documentary raised questions about investigators' integrity in the Halbach case. Prosecutors insisted the show was one-sided but it still created a national groundswell of support for Avery and Dassey.

A federal magistrate judge overturned Dassey's conviction this month, ruling that investigators took advantage of his youth and intellectual deficits to coerce him into confessing to Halbach's killing.

The state Justice Department has 90 days to appeal the ruling or decide whether to retry him. If the agency chooses to do nothing, he will go free.

Tania Cadogan said...

His attorney, Kathleen Zellner, told reporters outside the Manitowoc County courthouse Friday that she wants to date blood and DNA found at the scene to see if it was planted.

Pardon me if i am being dumb, How can you date blood and DNA to a specific time?

Anon "I" said...

Thank-you, Nic. I had read that on one of the threads. Since he has been posting new items
as they occur, I was thinking he was feeling better. I do hope he is healthy, feeling much better, and getting the care and rest he deserves. :)

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton's non-denials of her health issues continue.

"His latest paranoid fever dream is about my health. All I can say is, Donald, dream on."

If she can't say she's in good heatlh, we can't say it for her.

Anonymous said...

Maybe stress getting to her.

Anonymous said...

Great book. In darkest England by General William Booth. The Salvation Army. May've been the last or most recent powerful move of God in the world.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Amanda Blackburn article coming...the delay is only due to busy schedule.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

tania cadogan said...
His attorney, Kathleen Zellner, told reporters outside the Manitowoc County courthouse Friday that she wants to date blood and DNA found at the scene to see if it was planted.

Pardon me if i am being dumb, How can you date blood and DNA to a specific time?

I think they mean testing the blood found at the scene to determine the age of the 'donor' at time the sample was taken. Per your linked story above, that blood sample would have been taken 18 years prior to his release in 2003.

"Now, for the first time, age is being determined from blood and tooth samples – and European police agencies are already clamoring to use it, according to a Belgian team’s newly-published research in the journal Epigenetics.

The technique could have important use in forensic examinations of the future, one of the scientists told Forensic Magazine."[end snip]

John Mc Gowan said...

Nic said...
John said:
"It is also in the past tense. So isn't he "co-operating" anymore?"

Maybe through his lawyer? :0)

Indeed, Nic. I didn't think of that.

Address all questions to my lawyer. It's interesting that he has employed (lawyer) the best around.

Still no plea for her safe return.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I found my answer to caveat (in this case). Vicinity Centres is the landlord to the shopping centre Bella Bleu was located (the one closed in February). I'm thinking because the husband took over the business in February, (filed legal documentation to the effect,) he/the home is still bound by the caveat. Then there is the fact that no one knows what happened to Karen Ristevski, however, the investigators aren't very hopeful if they are using the word "gravely" to describe what they suspect happened to KR.

Vicinity Centres would not comment on tenant information, but workers in nearby stores said the Bella Bleu Broadmeadows shop closed this year. A phone number for the Broadmeadows outlet is listed on the Bella Bleu website, but it is disconnected.

Legal sources said shopping centre landlords use mortgage ­caveats as security for when they issue legal notices to tenants who have fallen into rent arrears.

As part of that process, legal sources said, the landlord can ­either enforce or end the lease. The landlord would therefore ­demand its rent or give the shop operators a 14-day notice period where they would then be locked out of the shopping centre.

The Australian

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: I have a question regarding SA. What if you are talking to someone you know as an acquaintance (smalltalk), and they spontaneously (without being asked and without that person being a topic of conversation) say "I dont know why (person's name) blah blah" regarding another person. Is this sensitive if offered spontaneously about the other person: "I dont why (person's name) blah blah. ?

lynda said...

Peter Hyatt said...
Amanda Blackburn article coming...the delay is only due to busy schedule.

I'm so interested in reading what your final analysis is Peter.

Anonymous said...

In regards to 5:40, Would a person spontaneously saying "I dont know why (name of person) is blah blah"...Would the fact it is stated in the negative mean that the person does know why (name of person) is blah blah blah"? This is what I am specifically wondering if that helps.

Anonymous said...

Al Shrptn is criticizing Trmp for offering real help to Blk Americns? Whaaaat?

Hey Jude said...

I'm a bit taken aback by this:

“my attorney, Mark Quigley, came up to the jail and yes, he threatened my life."

and this:

“He threatened, pretty much he threatened my life, says if I didn’t sign this I’d pretty much spend my whole life in jail, and that’s, you can’t say that to somebody,” Harris said.

It's astonishing that he claims the legal advice received was a personal threat against his life. One has to wonder if he lacks basic self-awareness to try to suggest such a strange thing - he might just as well have announced that he is a liar with a victim mentality who holds his attorney in contempt. It's such a deliberate misrepresentation of whatever conversation took place that it would be surprising if he still has an attorney, or could find any willing to represent him.

What does he mean by, "..,you can't say that to somebody."?

Given the context, it seems a disconnection from reality if he can't 'get' how what he says about his attorney will be seen for the lie it is - he must know it will not be believed that his attorney actually 'threatened his life', he was just doing his job in imparting the necessary information. 'Pretty much' weakens the claim, but as he still makes it, he wants it somehow believed that he is being victimised. It is strange, as his earlier caution, where he tries to avoid implicating himself in the murder, says he does know what he is doing - yet what he says about the attorney seems also to say otherwise - it is as though he must lack basic self-awareness if he cannot see that he presents himself as a disregarder of others, and of the truth. He cares nothing for the attorney's reputation in the slurring his character - strangely, he must also be confident that at least some people will believe him, despite how obvious the lie.

How can that be? I wonder if he maybe is someone who is used always to being believed, no matter how much he twists facts. Also, if he is used to having his own way, and dictating how others can behave, thus his indignation at the news from his attorney - "you can't say that to someone." He has difficulty in accepting that an attorney can say and has said that he could face life in prison.

As he chooses to say "you can't say that" - I think that the attorney only said, rather than even 'told' him that he might face life in prison. If he had 'threatened his life' he'd be more than mildly saying.

That he would think anyone would believe the attorney might have any reason or interest in threatening his life is absurd - I find it astonishing that he said that, and that he said it more than once - is he maybe blind to the fact that it is obvious he is lying?

Anonymous said...

Could someone with some real knowledge, preferably Jen Ow or John McGowan (who I find to be both brilliant and helpful) answer the question about is it sensitive if someone spontaneously says "I dont know why (name of person) is blah blah blah"? TIA

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
is he maybe blind to the fact that it is obvious he is lying?

I don't think he is "blind". I think he personifies contempt.


JOA said...

Sorry to bother this community again but JOA (pronounced JOE-AH) just wanted me to say as she prepares for surgery that she feels both proud and blessed to be part of this community of analysts. Now, this is news to me, because I thought this was a knitting forum, but it turns out this dear sweet little old lady likes to keep an eye on crime. Bless her heart!

Anonymous said...

Could someone tell me if parroted language in an unsolicited free flow of dialogue would be a red flag for deception or merely a sensitivity marker?