Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Analysis: Derek Morris Accused of Domestic Violence

Kristen Maria has made allegations of Domestic Violence against major league baseball player,  to  Derek Norris.    Major League baseball is investigating.  I have left the statements up without analysis to allow for review.  Here is a basic conclusion for you to consider.  

Context:  

She posted her accusation  on social media. 

 About a week later, he responded to reporters.  


Here are both statements; one from social media, and the other to reporters.  

  What can we know from both statements? 



ON SUNDAY EVENING, I WAS EMOTIONAL. I HAD SPENT FOUR YEARS WORKING TO FINISH MY DEGREE WHILE RIDING A ROLLER COASTER OF LIFE. THIS MORNING, AFTER READING A RESPONSE, DENYING MY “ALLEGATIONS” OF A LIFE CHANGING MOMENT, MY EMOTIONS TURNED TO ANGER. BUT WHAT DID I EXPECT? AS THIS SITUATION IS ALL TOO COMMON IN THE WORLD, NOT JUST THE WORLD OF SPORTS, BUT THE WORLD. A PERSON WHO IS ABUSIVE DOES NOT REALIZE THEY ARE, OR THINK THEY ARE. ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE PEOPLE, FANS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS GLORIFY THE PERSON FOR A SKILL THEY SPEND THEIR LIFE PERFECTING. AS I AM WAITING TO HAVE MY FORMAL MEETING WITH THE COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, THE ONLY THING I CAN DO TO CHANNEL MY RACING HEART AND SHAKING HANDS IS TO WRITE OUT MY EXPERIENCE. I WILL NOT LET THE MEDIA OR ANY OTHER AVENUE ALTER MY EXPERIENCE. IT CANNOT BE ALTERED, MY EXPERIENCE FOREVER SHAPED ME AND NO AMOUNT OF DENIAL WILL CHANGE THE NIGHTMARES I HAVE, THE INSECURITIES I HAVE AND THE PASSION I HAVE, TO HELP THIS NOT HAPPEN TO ANYBODY ELSE. A SICKENING AREA OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN NEEDS TO HAVE MORE LIGHT SHED ON IT. AND I HOPE TO DO THAT. I HOPE MULTIPLE WOMEN CAN READ THIS AND GET OUT OF CONTROLLING SITUATIONS, ABUSIVE SITUATIONS AND MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DRAINING SITUATIONS.
BEFORE I RELIVE THE NIGHT THAT CHANGED MY LIFE, I WANT TO REITERATE SOMETHING. I WAS DEEPLY IN LOVE WITH DEREK. I STILL FEEL LOVE IN MY HEART FOR HIM. I WISH I DIDN’T, BUT I DO. I STILL HAVE NIGHTS WHERE I THINK ABOUT US FIRST MEETING AND HOW I STAYED UP ALL NIGHT JUST TO TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE. WE STARTED DATING WHEN I WAS 19, AFTER A HARD, LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP, WE SEPARATED FOR ABOUT A YEAR.  WE RECONNECTED AND SHORTLY AFTER, GOT ENGAGED. DEREK WAS NOT A LOVEY DOVEY, EMOTIONAL TYPE, BUT HE WAS FUNNY. HE WAS THE MOST AUTHENTIC PERSON I’VE CAME ACROSS, NOT CHANGING HIS PERSONALITY FOR ANY PERSON, REPORTER OR FAN. HE WAS WONDERFULLY SARCASTIC AND HE WAS THE HARDEST WORKER I HAVE EVER MET. HIS CAREER WAS HIS LIFE, AFTER GAMES, HE WOULD STAY UP STUDYING FOR THE NEXT ONE. HE WAS DEDICATED, DETERMINED AND FOCUSED. HE IS AN EXTREMELY TALENTED ATHLETE AND SPENT HIS WHOLE LIFE TRAINING TO BE JUST THAT. NOBODY SHOULD EVER TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM. THE LAST YEAR OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT A GOOD ONE THOUGH, A LARGER CONTRACT WAS SIGNED, MORE PRESSURE TO PERFORM WAS PLACED ON HIM AND MORE PEOPLE HAD OPINIONS ON EVERY ASPECT OF HIS LIFE. IT IS FUNNY, EVEN AFTER BEING TREATING WRONG, DISRESPECTED AND PHYSICALLY ABUSED, I STILL FIND MYSELF MAKING EXCUSES FOR HIS ACTIONS. MAYBE IF I JUST DIDN’T WAKE UP AND CHECK ON HIM THIS WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED. MAYBE IF I WAS A LITTLE MORE FUN AND LESS UP TIGHT I WOULD HAVE WANT TO STAY UP AND HAVE DRINKS WITH HIM. MAYBE HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE WAS SO STRESSED, HAVING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON HIM. MAYBE HE LOVED ME SO MUCH, HE DIDN’T WANT ME TO SEE HIM DOING SOMETHING SO HURTFUL. MAYBE WHEN HE IS DONE WITH BASEBALL, THINGS WILL BE BETTER BECAUSE HE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE. SO MANY “MAYBE’S” TO TRY AND CHANGE A TERRIBLE NIGHT.
ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2015 DEREK AND I WERE AT OUR HOME IN WICHITA, KS. WE HAD BEEN SITTING OUT ON OUR PATIO AND DEREK HAD BEEN DRINKING. AS IT GOT LATE I WENT TO GO TO BED AND DEREK WENT DOWNSTAIRS, AS HE WAS STILL DRINKING. I REMEMBER WAKING UP TO HIM KNEELING AT THE BED TELLING ME HOW PRETTY I WAS AND SINGING “SLOW JAMS” TO ME, BUT I COULDN’T KEEP MY EYES OPEN. I WOKE UP A LITTLE WHILE LATER. I’M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT HAD BEEN. I FELT THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT AND I WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO FIND DEREK ON THE PHONE. HE SEEMED STARTLED AND STARTED TALKING “SPORTS” TO THIS PERSON ON THE PHONE. I TOOK THE PHONE AND HEARD A FEMALE’S VOICE STATING, “ARE YOU GOING TO TALK TO ME”. I KNEW WHO IT WAS BECAUSE I HAD SEEN TEXTS AND CAUGHT HER CALLING DEREK BEFORE. I TOOK HIS PHONE AND WALKED UP OUR STAIRS TO TRY AND GET THIS GIRL TO SPEAK TO ME. I APPROACHED OUR KITCHEN ISLAND WITH THE PHONE IN MY HAND AND DEREK APPROACHED ME FROM BEHIND AND PUT ME IN A CHOKE HOLD. AT THIS TIME, I THOUGHT HE WANTED THE PHONE. I THREW THE PHONE ONTO THE KITCHEN ISLAND AND TRIED TO GET AWAY. DEREK THEN GRABBED ME BY THE BACK OF MY HAIR TO PULL ME BACK TO HIM. HE EVENTUALLY LET GO AND AS I TURNED AROUND HE GRABBED ME BY MY UPPER ARMS SO I COULDN’T LEAVE AS HE TRIED TO DRUNKENLY EXPLAIN THAT HE WASN’T TALKING TO ANOTHER FEMALE.


AFTER THIS I TRIED TO GO TO OUR BEDROOM TO GET MY PHONE TO CALL MY MOM SO SHE COULD COME HELP ME. HE STOOD IN FRONT OF ME CORNERING ME SO I COULD NOT GET TO MY PHONE. HE KEPT TRYING TO TALK TO ME AND DENY WHAT HE WAS DOING. I EVENTUALLY COULD GRAB MY PHONE AND GET INTO OUR GUEST ROOM AND LOCK THE DOOR. I GRABBED MY SUITCASE AND CALLED MY MOM SO SHE COULD COME GET ME.
MY MOM AND HER HUSBAND SHOWED UP AND TOOK ME BACK TO THEIR HOME. DEREK CALLED MY MOM AND WAS TALKING TO HER ON THE PHONE. HE CALLED HER AGAIN ONCE WE REACHED MY MOM’S HOUSE. I DON’T KNOW DETAILS OF WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT. I DO KNOW THAT HE WAS SO UPSET BY THE SITUATION THAT HIS PARENTS CAME OVER TO THE HOUSE TO BE WITH HIM AND TALK TO HIM.
A WEEK LATER DEREK’S BEST FRIEND WAS GETTING MARRIED AND DEREK WAS IN THE WEDDING. I WENT TO THE WEDDING, I ROAD WITH HIS PARENTS. ON THE WAY, THERE, I ASKED IF THEY HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN US. HIS DAD MADE COMMENTS SUCH AS, “I DID NOT RAISE MY SON THAT WAY.” HIS MOM MADE THE COMMENT OF, “THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING DEEPER GOING ON.”
                I MOVED BACK INTO OUR HOME SOME SHORT TIME AFTER. BUT THINGS WERE NOT THE SAME. I REMEMBER CALLING DEREK’S MOM BAWLING MY EYES OUT THINKING “I HAD SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME” AND THAT IS WHY DEREK AND I HAD ISSUES. BELIEVE ME, I STRUGGLED WITH ANXIETY, DEPRESSION AND AN EATING DISORDER. I DID AND STILL DO HAVE THINGS WRONG WITH ME. BUT, NOTHING WILL EVER BE SO WRONG WITH ME THAT I DESERVED TO BE TREATED IN SUCH A WAY. EVEN AFTER DEREK HAD LAID HIS HANDS ON ME IN SUCH AN AGGRESSIVE WAY, I WANTED TO DO WHATEVER I COULD TO FIX US, TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. I WAS HOLDING ON TO A LOVE AND PERSON THAT WAS NO LONGER THERE. THAT IS WHAT MAKES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, PHYSICAL ABUSE OR MENTAL ABUSE SCARY. IT IS DONE TO US BY THE PERSON WE LOVE MOST IN THE WORLD.
                THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TOO OFTEN. WOMEN START IN A LOVING RELATIONSHIP AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, WORK, FAMILY, FINANCES, ALCOHOL OR STRESS, THE RELATIONSHIP CHANGES. BUT, BECAUSE OF HOW WE ARE TALKED TO AND HOW WE ARE TREATED WE FEEL WE CANNOT LEAVE, WE FEEL WE CAN CHANGE THIS PERSON, OR WE CAN CHANGE OURSELVES SO THE PERSON WILL LOVE US ENOUGH TO CHANGE THEMSELVES.
                WHEN I WROTE MY POST ON SUNDAY EVENING, I FELT EMPOWERED. I WAS SO PROUD OF GETTING OUT OF A RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS NOT RIGHT FOR ME. I WAS PROUD THAT I LEFT WITH NOTHING AND COULD BUILD MY LIFE OVER. I WAS PROUD I COULD FINALLY FIND THE COURAGE TO SAY THAT I WAS HURT, DAMAGED, SCARRED AND SCARED BUT STILL FOUND A WAY TO CREATE A LIFE FOR MYSELF. ALL I WANTED TO WAS TO SHARE THAT. I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO KNOW, THEY CAN CHANGE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AT ANY TIME. I STILL FIND MYSELF HESITANT TO SHARE WHAT HAPPENED, BECAUSE, “IT WASN’T THAT BAD”. I DIDN’T BLEED, I DIDN’T BREAK BONES, I WAS NOT HIT, KICKED OR THROWN TO THE GROUND. I QUESTION, IF MY EXPERIENCE IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO HELP WOMEN. IS GOING THROUGH THIS WORTH THE OUTCOME? MY INTENTION IS NOT MAKE THE MAN I LOVED, AND STILL HAVE LOVE IN MY HEART FOR, LOOK LIKE A MONSTER, BECAUSE HE ISN’T. LIFE CHEWED HIM UP AND SPIT HIM OUT JUST AS IT DID TO ME. I AM SURE IF HIS WORK, FAMILY, FINANCE AND STRESS SITUATIONS WERE DIFFERENT, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. BUT THEY WEREN’T, AND I HAD WORDS HURT ME AND HIS TOUCH HURT ME. I WILL FOREVER HAVE THAT SHAPE WHO I AM. ALREADY, WOMEN HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME LIVING IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, MANY MUCH MUCH WORSE THAN I COULD IMAGINE. WITH THOSE INTERACTIONS, I KNOW, THAT PUTTING MYSELF OUT THERE TO SHARE WILL HELP OTHERS TO FIND A WAY TO LEAVE, START OVER AND CREATE SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL.


Here is Derek Norris statement:

 "First, I want to be absolutely clear that abuse of any form, is completely unacceptable. Allegations regarding this issue are a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly under any circumstances. That being said, in this circumstance, the comments made by my ex-fiancee could not be further from the truth. I have NEVER been physically or emotionally abusive towards her, or anyone else in my life.I plan to go above and beyond to assist MLB with their investigation into this matter."





Analysis Conclusion:

There have been some astute comments on the blog, including one who took the time to measure the form of the statement which made it "unreliable" on its form.  

Unreliable, as a status, does not necessitate deception, but puts the analyst on alert for possible deception.  

Deception is not error.  In order to be deception, one must intend to slant, color or portray something in the element of which it is not.  It must be intentionally  or knowingly done.  

Once the form is recognized, we must then seek to learn:

a.  why it is unreliable 
b.  what parts of it may be unreliable 
c.  what does the form reveal about priority 
d.  what parts are reliable.  

A statement like this will have an emotional impact upon the reader/analyst.  

Many comments show that the reader does not like the subject.  This is why we train through such statements because even when motive is evident and illicit, we do not conclude deception by motive.  

Let's look at her statement from a distance; that is, not close up analysis.  

1.  Context:  

 First note that it is lengthy, written in all capitalization, and was not a police statement, but a statement posted on social media:  it is public.  The message is not to Derek Morris, but to the general public.  

Its capitalization makes it difficult to read and is used to gain even more attention. 

Its length is considerable which is suggestive of emotion.  

2.  Priority  

That it is written to the public, and not to Derek nor to the police, already suggests priority.  

We note where she begins her statement: 


ON SUNDAY EVENING, I WAS EMOTIONAL.


This is where the domestic violence began. 

This may sound absurd but remember:  we are not dealing with reality.  We are dealing with the subject's verbalized perception of reality.  To her, this violence began Sunday evening and with her emotion.  

Did you notice that the statement did not begin with the pronoun "I"?

This, too, is a reminder that reliability within the statement is in question, just as the form itself. 

Form: 

When a person speaks or writes from experiential memory, there is a natural psychological breakdown of an event based statement:

25% of the words will be introductory 
50% of the words will be about the event; that is, what happened. 
25% of the words will follow the event and tell us "what happened next."

For example:

"I was walking in the park on Sunday night at 10PM.  A man told me he needed $20 for bus fair to get home. I said I didn't have any money and he pushed me to the ground and kicked me in the stomach. I yelled for police and he ran off. I called 911 and they came."

Form:

The "main event" is the assault.  It is "what happened" to him.  

This is 58 words in length. 

"I was walking in the park on Sunday night at 10PM" is 11 words, or a bit above 10%   11 out of 58 is near 20% 

When the man enters:   33 words about the assault  with is near 56% 

14 words after the assault    24 %

This is to answer "What happened, next?" after he answered, "what happened?" for us.  

The balance is 20/56/24

This is close to the psychological 25/50/25 and is "reliable" on its form.  It does not mean it is truthful, but we begin noting that it is likely to be reliable.  Did you notice it began with the pronoun "I"? This means that psychologically, the subject is "present" in a very strong manner.  

The overwhelming number of deceptive statements are heavily weighted in the introduction.  

Her statement is 1539 words.  

What is its form?

She uses 740 words before she gets to the assault.  

This is 48% introduction.  This is unreliable on its form and it is consistent with many deceptive statements.  

Next:  the assault is the "event" of the statement.  It is not the priority of the statement.  This is what throws off readers.  

The assault is 191 words.  This is only 12% of her words. 

608 after come after. 

The priority of this public post is not Domestic Violence. 

With only 12% of her words dedicated to what happened, we must now do two things:

1.  Analyze the words of the alleged assault to see if she is truthful or deceptive

2.  Learn why the event (D/V) is such a minor part of her account .


1.  The Alleged Assault:


I TOOK HIS PHONE AND WALKED UP OUR STAIRS TO TRY AND GET THIS GIRL TO SPEAK TO ME. 

I APPROACHED OUR KITCHEN ISLAND WITH THE PHONE IN MY HAND AND DEREK APPROACHED ME FROM BEHIND AND PUT ME IN A CHOKE HOLD. AT THIS TIME, I THOUGHT HE WANTED THE PHONE. I THREW THE PHONE ONTO THE KITCHEN ISLAND AND TRIED TO GET AWAY. DEREK THEN GRABBED ME BY THE BACK OF MY HAIR TO PULL ME BACK TO HIM. HE EVENTUALLY LET GO AND AS I TURNED AROUND HE GRABBED ME BY MY UPPER ARMS SO I COULDN’T LEAVE AS HE TRIED TO DRUNKENLY EXPLAIN THAT HE WASN’T TALKING TO ANOTHER FEMALE.



There are portions here that are reliable.  Note the past tense verbs and the appropriate pronoun usage.  

For example:  
The choke hold is reliable. 
Her throwing of the phone is reliable. 
Him grabbing her by the back of the hair is also reliable. 

However, the sensitivity indicators tell us that there is more here than what she is reporting.  

This is consistent with the form of the statement:  Unreliable. 

Note "approached" is not "grabbed" but the action just prior to.  This is an area of missing information.  

She has a need to explain "why" (in blue) he did certain things.  This is very sensitive information.  

The need to explain why something was done, in an open statement that reports an event must be explored for missing information. 

It took her  a great deal of time to get to the statement which reduces its reliability on the whole. 

She reliably reports what he did, while withholding information of what she did.  Note both "approached" and "eventually" share the element of time.  This is where the brain is considering what took place over this elapsing period of time but does not want to report it. 

Note also the editorializing of the event with, in the midst of an assault, she reports what he was thinking.  

Derek Morris' denial is unreliable.  

What does this tell us?

1.  She is telling the truth about him assaulting her. 
2.  She is withholding information about what she did to him. 
3.  Her motive is exploitation through publicity.  

What do we know about her?

She is intelligent and she is manipulative. 

A deeper analysis of the wording suggests a narcissistic and self absorbed manipulator, including her triangulation with his family, and the appeal to other women.  She seeks to exploit the situation while portraying herself as magnanimous in her generous treatment of him.  

Readers struggled with this because her motive and personality are overwhelmingly stated.   The gratuitous appeal to women as victims and herself as dedicated to helping them also impacts us. 

The "screaming" capitalization as well as the context and length reveal a deceptive and conniving manipulator who is seeking to cash in on his fame.  

She does a disservice to victims of Domestic Violence in this "Gloria Allred" like publicity stunt, as she seeks to gain notoriety at his expense.  

She is "front and center" of the statement, proud of herself and using emotional manipulation to target specific readers.  Follow her pronouns to see emphasis.  

The language she uses regarding personal impact does not appear to be truthful either.  She writes as if this is the best thing that could have ever happened to her.  This, too, is insulting to victims.  

Morris put his hands on her in anger.  For this, he is very likely to suffer consequences to his career.  

It is very likely that she, too, put her hands on him.  She is very likely to profit from this.  

I and other analysts do pro bono work for victims of Domestic Violence.  It is cases like this in which cynicism can enter.  

Cynicism harms victims. 

There is a reason why so few words were used to describe the assault and why it took her so long to get there. 

Derek Morris' account of what happened may fill in the blanks. 









39 comments:

Amyl Nitrite said...

I TOOK HIS PHONE AND WALKED UP OUR STAIRS TO TRY AND GET THIS GIRL TO SPEAK TO ME.
--Is it possible that her use of phone in this case is also an indication of deception? I understand that it means the person is tied to what happened. When you indicate that there is a portion of her story that she is withholding, this can also be a reflection of it.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I agree with pretty much your whole analysis. The SCAN sensitivity is there...my guess is she may have taken the phone to scream at the other woman..my guess is the account is "sanitized" bc if she says "I grabbed the phone and went upstairs so I could call his girlfriend every name in the book", then suddenly people are going to think wow, well that sounds mean etc. On the other hand though, I feel no sympathy for him. People make choices...if he wanted to have a girlfriend on the side, and not be discreet ie talking to girlfriend while his fiancee is in the other room, common sense should tell him if he gets caught, and he most likely will, the fiancee is going to be angry. Her grabbing the phone, telling at his girlfriend over the phone...this is not outside the range of a fairly normal and expected reaction. My point, sure, he can have a girlfriend on the side, he can attempt to be discreet (or not), but if and when his fiancee finds out, in all likelihood she will be angry. This doesnt give her the right to do anything she wants but if she grabbed the phone & was yelling at the girlfriend, this just doesnt elicit sympathy from me.
I also do agree she seems to be being somewhat overdramatic, who knows maybe she is extremely hurt about the affair, or maybe her personality is also manipulative, it's not like my heart is bleeding for her. I just feel next time he should try to be more discreet with his affairs bc most women would be very angry if their fiancee is talking to his mistress in the other room. If he doesnt want to be yelled at he should hide it better bc 99% of people are very upset when fiancee or spouse is cheating.

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering if this could be a case of domestic violence where both parties are guilty? Did she go and check on him out of concern for his well being or suspicion he was communicating with another woman? When she saw it was the latter, did she do more than just grab the phone? She seems to go to great lengths to paint herself as a victim when simply stating that he put her in a choke hold for merely grabbing his phone would have been more than enough to do the job even without the grabbing her by the hair part. That is not acceptable behavior over a phone or illicit phone call, and I can't think of a scenario where it would be unless she had grabbed a weapon or threatened to go get one and he was trying to prevent that from happening? That seems unlikely, though, but not impossible. think the missing information involves her violent behavior that if revealed , would jeopardize her role as purely the victim here. It is very important to her she is seen as an innocent victim and there's missing information? This leads me to believe she's not quite as innocent of a victim as she portrays. It still likely does not justify his actions because, like I said, I can't think of a plausible scenario where his alleged actions would be justified, but I think the missing information might change the scenario from one victim to two victims and one perpetrator to two perpetrators. That scenario would not suit her motives as revealed in her priorities.

Anonymous said...

The guy is huge and looks strong as a bull. That would be like me complaining if a 6 year old tried to beat me up. He had to put her in a head lock for "self-defense". Puh-lease. He could have just grabbed her wrists or walked out the door of she in fact hit him, which we have no evidence or reason to believe that she did. If you can get your assailant into a headlock and pull them by their hair that AINT much of a fight is it?

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 2:50...
I think it would be understandable if she were to yell at the other woman after grabbing the phone. I'm not saying it's necessarily justified and it's certainly not productive. However, I think that is exactly what A LOT of women would do in that scenario. For this reason, I don't think that is all of the missing information she is hiding. It may be part of it but I think that and that alone would have little impact on public sympathy for her or seeing her as the victim. Her merely grabbing the phone and yelling at the other woman would in no way justify his alleged reaction of violence. However, if she did more than just yell, if SHE got violent first, then her status of sole victim in this scenario is diminished (not that it necessarily justifies his actions, BUT she would then be both victim and perpetrator as would he). That is not what she wants. She spends a great deal of time convincing us of her status as completely innocent victim. It's very important to her we see her just this way. So much so, she must convince us. What she wants to achieve out of this is contingent on her being the sole victim and a completely innocent undeserving one at that. IMO.

Anonymous said...

I have no sympathy for him. Women open up their bodies and heart to men only to have them cheat etc. Does he use protection with his mistress? She has no way of knowing, so she's gotta worry about if he's bringing home diseases etc including AIDS!!!!! Men treat women like crap and then want pity. Oh, boo hoo she took his phone. I would not feel bad for him if she smashed it with a hammer. Yes that is wrong, but I wouldn't feel bad for him. I feel bad for starving children. Not men cheating on their wives & exposing them to potential diseases and then wanting pity?!?!?!
He AINT gettin my pity! And she is being accused of violence based on nothing. He is frighin huge and all muscle. If some guy built like that told me his girlfriend tried to beat him up so he put her in a headlock I would laugh at how ridiculous it sounds. He also "pulled her hair from behind"...very odd thing to do if he has been assaulted and wants to get away.
If she punched/hit him it would do nothing. If she pushed him it would not even move him. He is not a ragdoll being thrown around. He's a huge strong man. He put her in headlock. He pulled her hair from behind. WTF? How was he a victim. He attacked. Why twist it?

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 3:31
Read what I wrote. I said the self defense scenario was unlikely but if she grabbed or tried to grab a weapon, then yes, I could see him using such force. However it doesn't fit the scenario IMO which I CLEARLY indicated. I also CLEARLY indicated that even if she did get violent first, it doesn't necessarily justify his actions, BUT that it makes BOTH of them perpetrators AND victims. She wants to be seen as solely a victim and the sole victim. Since there is missing information here it makes perfect sense to entertain the possibility that the missing information would challenge her status as sole victim, hence why it is missing. If all she did was grab the phone, there is no justification or rationalization for him putting her in a choke hold or grabbing her hair. NONE! In that scenario she IS the sole victim, period. He is the sole perpetrator period. If, on the other hand, she assaulted him first, he is ALSO a victim. Her actions would not be justified just because he's talking to another woman and he outweighs her. You don't get a free pass to assault people who upset you just because you aren't as strong as them. The law doesn't work that way. It still likely would not justify him putting her in a choke hold or grabbing her hair as she's trying to get away from him. AS I SAID BEFORE I can't think of a scenario where that would be justified unless there was a weapon involved and/ or she threatened to go get one. I did not say I think that's what happened because I DONT. I do think the missing information is information that challenges her narrative of being solely a victim AND the sole victim.

Anonymous said...

I never said that any violence is justified. If she hit him, pushed him, that is not a correct thing to do, it is wrong, but does it make him a "victim"? No. If I dwarf someone in strength and body mass (for example an 8 year old) and they push me or hit me, maybe it's just me, but I would not feel "victimized" nor would I want to be viewed as a "victim".
The way I raised my son, if his girlfriend hit or pushed him, yes break up with her, but do not consider yourself a "victim". Especially if he were to say "I put her in a headlock and pulled her hair from behind" I would in no way think he was a "victim". That is retarded when someone is so much bigger & stronger and they also put the woman into a headlock and pull her by her by her hair from behind. How many women who are GENUINE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE share their tragic story of being assaulted and then finishe their story by saying "oh yeah, and then I put him into a headlock"?!?! Answer: none. Because they are actually victims!
If he is a "victim" then he should be treated as a victim. He should be allowed to go live in a women's shelter. If I ran a women's shelter, and that guy showed up and said he was a "victim" I would find it hilarious, as it would be BULLSHIT.
All abusers claim to be "victims", they all lie.
For you to introduce the idea she may have had a weapon, that is something you made up since there is no linguistic indicator of that. But even if she did, he would have either grabbed her wrists, grabbed the weapon, or run/walked out of the house. Putting her in a headlock and grabbing her from behind by her hair does not indicate self-defense towards someone holding a weapon. Those are not suggestive of being approached by a weapon. If someone has a weapon, I am sure as hell not going to approach them from behind and pull them by their hair. WTF?!

Amyl Nitrite said...

I think she used social media to have communication with him, even it if was negative. That is why she used these words:
HE WAS FUNNY… MOST AUTHENTIC PERSON… NOT CHANGING HIS PERSONALITY FOR ANY PERSON…HE WAS WONDERFULLY SARCASTIC…THE HARDEST WORKER…HIS CAREER WAS HIS LIFE…HE WOULD STAY UP STUDYING… HE WAS DEDICATED, DETERMINED AND FOCUSED. HE IS AN EXTREMELY TALENTED ATHLETE AND SPENT HIS WHOLE LIFE TRAINING… NOBODY SHOULD EVER TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM.
These are words of praise. I think she wants to open the flow of communication. I think she used past tense references because of the lack of contact so she can’t say he is still funny, etc. But, she stated that he is an extremely talented athlete in the present tense. I think she keeps up with his games and watches them.
I got the impression that her long rant is because she wishes she could still be together with him. I think the night in question she and he had already argued about another woman. As evidenced by:
I KNEW WHO IT WAS
It became sensitive to her because she needed to explain why she knew who it was before being asked.
BECAUSE I HAD SEEN TEXTS AND CAUGHT HER CALLING DEREK BEFORE.
She had been checking his phone on other occasions.
In her narrative, she indicates she wasn’t sure how long she had fallen asleep. I don’t think she fell asleep at all. She was awake and paying attention to what he was doing. That is why she stated:
I’M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT HAD BEEN. I FELT THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT AND I WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO FIND DEREK ON THE PHONE.
She didn’t say she woke up, only that she wasn’t sure how long it had been. she was aware of what was happening. I think he went to the bedroom to smooth things out and maybe get it on with her and she said no because she was upset he had been texting with another woman. Maybe this was some punishment she eked out in her mind to him only to discover he moved on to Plan B (The Phone!)
In her story, she indicates she took his phone on two occasions:
I TOOK THE PHONE AND HEARD A FEMALE’S VOICE STATING, “ARE YOU GOING TO TALK TO ME”.
and then again:
I TOOK HIS PHONE AND WALKED UP OUR STAIRS TO TRY AND GET THIS GIRL TO SPEAK TO ME.
There must have been a little back and forth here.
There are 12 instances where she refers to the “phone”.
I think she is trying to get back with him. these are more words to coax him into a conversation with her:
MAYBE IF I JUST DIDN’T WAKE UP AND CHECK ON HIM THIS WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED.
The entire argument and problem wouldn’t have happened had she actually gone to sleep.
MAYBE IF I WAS A LITTLE MORE FUN AND LESS UP TIGHT I WOULD HAVE WANT TO STAY UP AND HAVE DRINKS WITH HIM.
She is trying to appeal to his arguments with her. I think that is what he said to her when he was trying to smooth things out by singing slow jams to her that night.
She wants to “TRY AND CHANGE A TERRIBLE NIGHT” into what? A re-do? She said so at the end by leaking: START OVER.
She still considers it her home. She uses the pronoun “our” each time she mentions the home, in fact she has revisited every room in the house this way. She referenced “our home”, “our patio”, “our stairs”, “our kitchen”, “our bedroom”, “our guest room”. WOW!!!
I think she is sending a guilt trip too: NOTHING WILL EVER BE SO WRONG WITH ME THAT I DESERVED TO BE TREATED IN SUCH A WAY.
She is regretful, not because of what happened, but because the night didn’t go as she had planned. She stated:
I WAS PROUD THAT I LEFT WITH NOTHING…
She got nothing out of this relationship. Nothing. No money, no marriage, no “home”, nothing. Whatever she had planned, this was not it.
By the same token, she stated on several occasions that alcohol had a part in this. This is the reason she should have left him. The explanation would have been short and sweet. Unfortunately, I don’t think “love” is what she felt for him. He needs to get his life in order, because I also think his drunkenness became abusive. He was also unable to formulate a reliable denial of the accusation. Relationships. They are so complex, aren’t they?

Anonymous said...

To look at the size of that guy and his strength and the fact his story ends with "and then I put her into a headlock", and some are theorizing he could be a "victim" I don't EVER want my son to think he should put a woman in a headlock EVER. There is a reason you don't hear female DV victims stories of being assaulted end with "oh yeah and then I out him into a headlock". That is just my feeling, it would break my heart if my son ever put a woman on a headlock or pulled a woman by her hair and then said "Mom Im a victim of my girlfriend". My heart would literally break in half like where did I go wrong?

Anonymous said...

Right she keeps wondering if I did this differently or that differently, maybe he wouldnt have done this. Lady, just kick his homely ass to the curb. He's a drunk, he's a cheater, I would not want to wake up next to that unkempt beard in the morning!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

@4:43, His drunkenness became abusive? No. I know drunks who are not abusive. This guy was drunk, he was singing slow jams, she wasnt being any fun, so he called his mistress. His CHEATING IS WHAT WAS ABUSIVE. MENTAL ABUSE. If cant be loyal then dont have a fiancee. He should just live by himself and clean up his own beer cans in the morning and stock up on some Dinty Moore. Let him clean up his own crap. And he can go get a blow-up doll so he can have someone on his own intellectual level and who won't care about his disgusting cheating and will enjoy his slow jams....Im sure that ratty beard had Miller Lite stuck in it too when he was trying to arouse her with his off-key singing. He's no Marvin Gaye. FAR FROM IT!!!!!!

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Of the 12 jurors at Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial, only two though the star was innocent but refused to listen to persuading arguments, it has been revealed.

In an interview with ABC, one of the jurors - who chose to remain anonymous - told how discussions at the highly publicized trial grew so tense, some in the group punched walls and cried as they tried hopelessly to reach a verdict.

Cosby, 79, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for allegedly attacking Temple University basketball coach Andrea Constand at his Philadelphia home in 2004.

His trial played out at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pennsylvania, for two weeks before a mistrial was declared last Friday.

On Wednesday, as they spoke out for the first time, one of the jurors revealed that ten in the jury were convinced he was guilty of digitally penetrating Constand without her consent, the first charge.

Of the second count - that Constand was unconscious or unaware of what was happening to her after being given drugs by the comedian - 11 jurors thought he was innocent and only one thought he was guilty.

The third count suggested that Cosby gave Constand the drugs without her knowledge by slipping them to her somehow. Again, ten jurors thought he was guilty of it but two, who 'wouldn't budge, would not move', did not.

Eventually, after days of heated arguments in a small deliberation room where jurors were 'walking in circles', they returned a deadlocked verdict to the judge.

A mistrial was declared and Cosby, who was confident he would either be acquitted or see a mistrial, left the court on bail.

In their interview with ABC, the juror refused to say which way they voted and declined to name any of their peers.

They insisted that despite widespread accusations from other women who claimed to have been assaulted by Cosby in the public sphere, nothing except from the contents of the trial was discussed.

'We never brought anything outside in. Never. Not once. If somebody would mention something, we would cut them off,' they said.

At the start of deliberations, the jurors all voted to acquit Cosby on all three charges before they began discussing the case.

Somewhere along the line, many changed their votes but it was not enough to return convictions on any of the counts.

There was no lack of tension in the deliberation room. Sheriff's deputies had to be posted outside and broke in several times, worried the group had begun fighting, they said, adding that one male juror punched a concrete wall because he was so irate.

'I think he broke his pinky knuckle. If we kept going, there was definitely going to be a fight.

'They had five sheriff’s deputies at the door and they could hear us and they kept coming in because they thought we were already fighting,' they said.

The twelve jurors were initially placed in a larger room but had to be moved when a judge was told that journalists could see in through a window.

The second room was so small that it drove them 'crazy'.

'People couldn't even pace. They were just literally walking in circles where they were standing because they were losing their minds.

'People would just start crying out of nowhere, we wouldn’t even be talking about [the case] -- and people would just start crying,' they said.

tania cadogan said...

cont.


On Wednesday, Constand spoke for the first time since last week's sensational court outcome.

'Thank you for the outpouring of love & kindness & support. I am eternally grateful for the messages I have received in recent days,' she said on Twitter.

Cosby maintains that the encounter in 2004 was consensual. In previous depositions, he described giving the woman Benadryl to relax her beforehand but insists he did not sexually attack her.

Despite not taking the stand, trial insiders say Cosby was vocal in his optimism.

According to some who spoke to Page Six after the mistrial was declared, he made light of the trial by referring to the courtroom as his 'stage' and said the room where he was being kept to wait during breaks was his 'dressing room'.

His wife Camille made few appearances at the trial but spoke with him on the phone when she wasn't there.

After his mistrial was declared, an impassioned statement she had written was read out on the courtroom steps.

As part of it, she thanked the jurors who sided with her husband, saying: 'I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence.'

She furiously lashed out at the District Attorney, calling him 'heinously and exploitively ambitious'.

On Tuesday, the trial judge granted a request from several media outlets to release the names of the jurors.

Constand is neither the first nor last woman to accuse Cosby of sexual misconduct but her accusations against him are the only ones which have ever reached a criminal court.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4627464/Ten-12-jurors-thought-Bill-Cosby-GUILTY.html


Given what they now know of the jury vote, will he and his defense continue to fight the case or come to a plea deal?
Do they think he will be aquited in a 2nd trial?

tania cadogan said...

off topic

Casey Anthony's parents are fighting to keep their home by countersuing the bank for trying to foreclose on the property and sell it at a public auction to the highest bidder.

Court documents obtained by DailyMail.com reveal Cynthia and George Anthony filed a lawsuit on June 19 claiming US Bank should not be permitted to seize their Orlando, Florida house.

US Bank sued the Anthonys in April claiming they have not made a single payment on their mortgage since December 2010.

The couple reportedly owes $129,000 plus interest on the property that is worth $196,000 according to Redfin.

The four bedroom, two bath house was purchased under Cynthia's name in 2005 where she agreed to pay $765 per month.

The Anthonys accused the bank of failing to give notice and an opportunity to cure the default no less than 30 days prior to acceleration of the debt.

The bank tried to foreclose on them in 2013 as well but the couple entered into a settlement to save their home and end the lawsuit.

They claim to have held up their end of the settlement but assert the plaintiff failed to fulfill its obligations by not filing a loan modification as required by the settlement.

Instead, they claim US Bank filed a lawsuit demanding foreclosure.

Cynthia and George are demanding the lawsuit be thrown out and the bank cover their attorney's fees.

In 2010, the same home was once again in danger of being foreclosed upon, this time by Bank of America, but the case was dropped.

The Hopespring Drive property was also mentioned in the 2011 murder trial of their daughter.

The prosecution against Casey Anthony noted the same property was close to where Caylee Anthony's skeletal remains were found by a meter reader inside a trash bag in the woods.

In March, Casey Anthony broke her silence about the death of her daughter since her acquittal.

She mentioned her father, who said he would never speak to her again after the trial, cryptically accusing him of having something to do with her daughter's murder.

'Cops believe other cops,' she told the Associated Press. 'Cops tend to victimize the victims. … Cops lie to people every day. I'm just one of the unfortunate idiots who admitted they lied.'

'My dad was a cop,' she continued, 'you can read into that what you want to.'

George has repeatedly denied having a hand in his two-year-old granddaughter's death.

In a statement to People, George and Cynthia said: 'After years of silence, Casey Anthony has decided to complete an interview and has once again pointed to George Anthony, her father, as a suspect in the disappearance and death of his granddaughter, Caylee.'

'George, who has continued to try and move forward from this tragedy and who was vindicated on multiple occasions, is once again forced to relive the hints, rumors, lies and allegations that are being made by Casey Anthony,' her parents continued. 'He has specifically stated that "his heart hurts even more now".'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4626298/Casey-Anthony-s-parents-counter-sue-house.html

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

This may have already been covered and I missed it, but why does she introduce the "other woman" with the girl and yet she ends by referring to her as the female?

Given the alleged situation (cheating by her partner), I wouldn't expect such generous language (although girl may be being used as a subtle insult implying she's more of a woman than the "other woman"). While "the female" is somewhat dehumanizing, it's far cleaner than what I'd expect given the cheating allegation and the domestic violence allegation. She seems to be avidly portraying how self-restrained she is versus him. I'm guessing this is part of why Peter's referring to her as intelligent and manipulating.

Why does she feel the feel the need to specify that he grabbed her "by the back of her hair"? In my mind, if she'd just said "he grabbed me by the hair", I would have automatically envisioned (and assumed) that he grabbed the back of her head. I would have flagged that as unnecessary detail. I definitely need more practice!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, and I understand because her all CAPS is very hard to read and follow, Peter misunderstood that when she wrote "SUNDAY NIGHT I WAS EMOTIONAL" that is actually referring to the night when she read comments that upset her, not the night of the domestic violence as Peter mistakenly thought it meant and with which he begins his analysis. It is very hard to read & follow therefore it is easy to make that mistake, however she is not referring to the night of the actual domestic violence.

Anonymous said...

Actually she seems to be referring to the night before the morning she read the upsetting comments denying her allegation. Part of her explanation of her emotions leading up to her writing the ALL CAPS statement.

Anonymous said...

I do have to agree that there is something disingenuous about her story. "His touch hurt me" is not how I would describe being put in head lock or having my hair pulled. Something is not right on a ge's real level with her account. I don't "feel" the violence. I don't feel the oppression of abuse. I have read many accounts of DV, and even if the victim loves the abuser there is more of a perception of fear, oppression...describing his "touch" as hurting is very odd, and doesnt ring true. Something is off. Perhaps she is in the minority of individuals who is twisting the incident to seem different than it was.

Anonymous said...

What I tried to write....there is something wrong on a visceral level with her account. Typical accounts of DV often sound outlandish because of the cruelty of the pattern and degree of the violence yet they are true. Oftentikes the repeative cruelty if the abuser will seem almost outrageous. They are often composed largely of factual "he did this, he did this, he did this"....he's a monster, I hate him, I cringe when I see him. OR he has made me feel worthless but I still love him I don't know why. But almost all the time you will hear a series of awful things the perp did with the writer staying very even-toned till the end when they express typically hatred for the abuser.. Something is off. There is also an inconsistency when she says she tries to go upstairs with the phone but then is inexplicably approaching the island in the kichen.

Anonymous said...

The Anthonys have not made a mortgage payment for six & a half years, yet they are demanding the foreclosure lawsuit be thrown out. And.........because they have responded, they may get yet another reprieve.

Anonymous said...

I want to stress that even though I am questioning her account I do not ever approve of men putting women into head locks.
She may be manipulating the story, however I hope in analyzing this, we can identify her manipulation of the story without condoning his headlock.

Anonymous said...

Typically in accounts of DV there is a pattern of abuse even if the abuse in "only" mental abuse. You will hear a fairly rapid sequence with the speaker getting the incidents "out" on paper, and you will get a very good idea of the character of the individual. Reading the accounts, you will find yourself stunned like wow, what an a-hole. Normally the emotion is suspended while describing even very violent incidents which I find odd...because it is very consistent in accounts I have read. Normally there is a linguistic portrait painted of fear and a dyad of enemy and prisoner...I don't know how else to describe it. There is usually a lot of tension linguistically, a lack of fluidity in the writing in true DV accounts, which is somewhat lacking in her account.

Anonymous said...

I reread her account and here is what's going on: He came into the room and was singing slow jams, etc and she was tired and he "gave up" and walked out. She was lying there hoping he'd come back in and make more of an effort. She was wondering why isn't he making more of an effort? Is he cheating on me? (One important possibility though and I will explain later, she may have been cheating on him.)

So she lays there thinking about it and then gets up. Either due to one of 2 things 1) she is paranoid that he cheats on her or 2) she is actually cheating on him and projecting that onto him--that is very common btw. She starts an argument about what is he doing on his phone accusing him of talking to another woman. There are linguistic indicators that he was not even talking on the phone imo. She states that she grabs that phone and someone says "Are you going to talk to me?" Since they were allegedly already talking about sports, why would she say "are you going to talk to me?" She says that she "knew who it was , because she had "seen texts" (she doesn't say who the texts were from that she saw or even who's phone they were on--merely that she had "seen texts") and that she had "caught her calling Derek before" (This is unusual how it is phrased as it is so vague--it is not "she had called Derek before" or "I had seen her number on his phone before"--it is "I had caught her calling Derek before"--how did she "catch" her? Did she intercept the phone calls? Unlikely.
She says she tried to bring the phone upstairs to "try to talk to her"...Why wouldnt; she just have immediately yelled "Don't call my fiancee anymore "into the phone...instead it is a delay where there is no real sense that there is a caller on the other end of the phone who she can speak to.
I really hate to say this because I know most accounts of DV are true, but I think that she fabricated him talking on the phone to another woman. It could be that she is actually cheating on him as that can lead to extreme projections of paranoia onto the person who is being cheated on, thinking that that the other person's every actions must be something indicating they are cheating when in reality they are not. It is a projection.
She is definitely leaving something out of her account. I don't agree with a man ever putting a woman in a headlock though.

Brian Delaney said...

Peter,
Your analysis is very insightful and clear but as someone else mentioned above the Sunday night in question is the day Norris responded to her initial accusation and not the day of the fight. Or maybe that was on a Sunday too ...there appears to be so much to analyse in this statement and a lot of the comments on the blog are very interesting.

She certainly has a lot of sympathy from her target audience.

Stop drop roll said...


OT Parents, older Siblings, Social Media how / who is using it, the wolves who recruit impressionable youth, young as Elementary school. For awareness please watch.

https://youtu.be/amfEln-60Pw

John mcgowan said...

OT:

911 call released for missing woman who went into the Kern River

911 call from the woman's boyfriend. A few quotes:

I will see if i can find the full transcript.

911..

Boyfriend: "My girlfriend threw herself in the water.
I need your help. Please.

OP: Ok sir we're dispatching units right now, okay? I need you to stay online with me.

BF: I can't just stay calm.

OP: And you saw he go into the water?

BF: Yes i seen her.

"She was wrong from her head."
"I guess she takes pills or something."

"No, we can't see. Can you guys please hurry."

"She was wrong from her head."
"I guess she takes pills or something."


I don't know if this a response to a question from the operator. Does she have any mental problems?. Or does she suffer with depression? and so on.

The first sentence sounds disjointed. Is this also subtle disparagement?

"We can't see."

Pronouns are instinctive and 100% reliable

So who else with him as he made the call?

It can't be the emergency service's, they didn't arrive until 20 minutes after the call. Did they have a pet (dog etc) with them? ("we")
Were there onlooker? ("we")
Was someone else trying to help him? ("We")
Guilt doesn't like to stand alone.

If we had the full transcript we maybe get a better idea of the context in the call.


BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -
The 911 call for the woman who went missing in the Kern River has been released.

The call was made by Rita Bello's boyfriend, Manuel. In the call, you can hear Manuel frantically asking for help. He tells dispatch to send emergency crews out quickly.

Bello was reported missing on Monday night. According to Bello's boyfriend, the couple went out to the Kern River to get her disabled car. Bello's boyfriend says she was looking for her keys when she voluntarily went into the river and was swept away. She hasn't been seen since.

Although this is not a direct quote. In his 911 call he says she "threw herself into the water"

Rescue crews are still looking for Bello. On Saturday, they plan on sending several boats out to search for any sign of her.

23ABC spoke to Bello's boyfriend on Friday over the phone, but he said he was too upset to speak on camera.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/911-call-released-for-missing-woman-who-went-into-the-kern-river

Update:

Body in Kern River Canyon identified as missing woman Rita Bello, died by suicide

UPDATE (May 18, 2017 11:21 a.m.): According to the Coroner's Office, Rita Bello's cause of death was drowning and her manner of death was suicide.

==================================

The body of Rita Bello, the woman who went missing in the Kern River Canyon on March 6, was found in the Kern River Canyon.

According to Sheriff’s Investigators, Bello was with her boyfriend before she disappeared.

As per KSCO, her boyfriend says that Bello was taken to the hospital earlier in the day. After she left the hospital, she called him to get her disabled car. He claims that Bello voluntarily went looking for her keys in the Kern River. That's when she was swept away.

Officials have ruled out Bello’s boyfriend as a suspect. But, her loved ones were desperate for answers. Close friend, Lena Guerra, doesn’t believe that she would voluntarily go into the water.

Increased water levels hindered search efforts and her body was discovered April 7, 2017 and only positively identified on April 27, 2017.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/body-in-kern-river-canyon-identified-as-missing-woman-rita-bello

Peter Hyatt said...

Brian Delaney said...
Peter,
Your analysis is very insightful and clear but as someone else mentioned above the Sunday night in question is the day Norris responded to her initial accusation and not the day of the fight. Or maybe that was on a Sunday too ...there appears to be so much to analyse in this statement and a lot of the comments on the blog are very interesting.

She certainly has a lot of sympathy from her target audience.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Unfortunately, and I understand because her all CAPS is very hard to read and follow, Peter misunderstood that when she wrote "SUNDAY NIGHT I WAS EMOTIONAL" that is actually referring to the night when she read comments that upset her, not the night of the domestic violence as Peter mistakenly thought it meant and with which he begins his analysis. It is very hard to read & follow therefore it is easy to make that mistake, however she is not referring to the night of the actual domestic violence.


**************************************************************************************************


No, it is a principle that would take too much time to go into here. This is why I said it is not reality. It is her verbalized perception of reality and she went back to a point of HER emotion.

This is central to deeper analysis but especially her profile.

Peter

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Trumps denial.

Trump: I didn't tape James Comey conversations



conversations
Cody Derespina
By Cody Derespina Published June 22, 2017 Fox News


Judicial Watch seeks documents unlawfully removed by Comey
President Trump tweeted on Thursday "I did not make, and do not have" any recordings of conversations with ex-FBI Director James Comey, ending speculation -- that he started -- about whether he had taped private talks with the since-fired Comey.

"With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings," Trump wrote in a pair of tweets.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea...
5:54 PM - 22 Jun 2017
4,992 4,992 Retweets 16,017 16,017 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
55m
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea...
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.
5:55 PM - 22 Jun 2017
5,204 5,204 Retweets 16,306 16,306 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Bloomberg broke the news that Trump didn't have any tapes just minutes before Trump tweeted on Thursday afternoon.

Trump jumpstarted questions about whether he had tapes when he tweeted a warning on May 12 to Comey, whom Trump suspected of leaking info to the press after his May 9 firing regarding private conversations between Comey and Trump.

"James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" wrote Trump, who has disputed some of the details in Comey's version of their one-on-one encounters.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
1:26 PM - 12 May 2017
25,687 25,687 Retweets 77,586 77,586 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Comey -- who wrote memos of his talks with Trump -- later testified he didn't know anything about recordings but was eager to hear them if they existed.

The White House declined to provide further insight into Trump's original tweet and spokespeople wouldn't confirm or deny the presence of any recording equipment in the Oval Office.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who serves as the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted earlier Thursday that Trump was due to reveal the answer to the mysterious "tapes" question by the following day.

"Deadline to turn over any tapes of Comey conversations to House Intel – if they exist – is Friday. Time is running out for WH to comply," Schiff wrote.

Follow
Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff
Deadline to turn over any tapes of Comey conversations to House Intel – if they exist – is Friday. Time is running out for WH to comply.
1:59 PM - 22 Jun 2017
4,659 4,659 Retweets 11,007 11,007 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A few hours later, Trump confirmed there was nothing to hand over.

Former President Richard Nixon infamously recorded many of his Oval Office encounters -- which came into play during the downfall of his presidency. Few presidents since are known to have recorded many, if any, of their White House encounters.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/22/breaking-news-trump-says-did-not-tape-conversations.html

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Bill Cosby to hold town halls on sex assault, publicist says

Bill Cosby will hold a series of town halls to educate young people on sexual assault, his publicists said.

Andrew Wyatt and Ebonee Benson were on "Good Morning Alabama" Wednesday and said Cosby "wants to get back to work" and is planning town halls that could start as early as next month.
"This issue can affect any young person, especially young athletes of today," Wyatt said. "And they need to know what they're facing -- when they're hanging out and partying, when they're doing certain things they shouldn't be doing."
The announcement comes less than a week after Cosby's high-profile trial on charges of aggravated indecent assault ended in a mistrial. The jury was unable to come to a unanimous

Neither Wyatt nor Benson elaborated on what the town halls would entail, how many town halls there would be and when and where they would be held.
Benson said Cosby wants to hold these town halls because it's important for people to be educated on what can be considered sexual assault.

"Laws are changing, laws are changing. The statute of limitations for victims of sexual assault are being extended," she said. "That's why people need to be educated -- you know, a brush across the shoulder, at this point, can be considered sexual assault and it's a good thing to be educated about the law."
Cosby, 79, has been accused of sexual assault or misconduct by at least 50 women, but has only gone to trial for the assault of Andrea Constand. Constand says Cosby drugged and assaulted her at his house in 2004.

The trial ended on Saturday after 12 days of trial and deliberations. After the verdict was announced, Wyatt left the courtroom with his fist in the air, declaring that Cosby's "power is back."
Prosecutors said they will retry Cosby, and Judge Steven O'Neill announced he would try to schedule a new trial within 120 days.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/us/cosby-sexual-assault-town-halls-trnd/index.html

tania cadogan said...

Hi John, i wonder if this is damage limitation and he is trying to buy brownie points before his next trial, especially now it is known 10/12 thought him guilty?
Why not do this earlier?
He does nothing without good reason

tania cadogan said...

off topic

The confession of a Wisconsin inmate featured in the Netflix series 'Making a Murderer' was improperly obtained, according to a three-judge federal appeals panel that ruled he should be released from prison.

Brendan Dassey was sentenced to life in prison in 2007 for the death of photographer Teresa Halbach after he told detectives he helped his uncle Steven Avery rape and kill her in the family's Manitowoc County salvage yard.

A federal magistrate judge overturned his conviction and ruled in August that investigators coerced Dassey, who was 16 years old at the time and suffered from cognitive problems, into confessing.

The state Justice Department appealed the ruling to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that kept Dassey, now 27, behind bars pending Thursday's ruling.

A three-judge panel from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit upheld the magistrate's decision to overturn his conviction.

The state attorneys' only recourse now is the U.S. Supreme Court although they could also elect to re-try Dassey within 90 days of the court's order.

Dassey's constitutional rights were violated because investigators made false promises during interrogations, according to Federal Magistrate William Duffin of Milwaukee.

According to WBAY, the 2-1 ruling read: 'The investigators promised Dassey freedom and alliance if he told the truth and all signs suggest that Dassey took that promise literally.

'The pattern of questions demonstrates that the message the investigators conveyed is that the 'truth' was what they wanted to hear.

'Dassey, however, had trouble maintaining a consistent story except when he was being led step-by-step through the facts, thus confirming that his confession emerge not from his own free will, but from the will of investigators.'

The Wisconsin Department of Justice responded to the ruling saying, 'We are evaluating the 2-1 decision from the court.

'We anticipate seeking review by the entire 7th Circuit or the United States Supreme Court and hope that today's erroneous decision will be reversed.

'We continue to send our condolences to the Halbach family as they have to suffer through another attempt by Mr. Dassey to re-litigate his guilty verdict and sentence.'

Dassey and Avery, who was sentenced to life in a separate trial, contend they were framed by police angry with Avery for suing Manitowoc County over his wrongful conviction for sexual assault.

Avery spent 18 years in prison in that case before DNA tests showed he didn't commit the crime. He's pursuing his own appeal in state court.

Their cases gained national attention in 2015 after Netflix aired 'Making a Murderer,' a multi-part documentary looking at Halbach's death, the ensuing jessiinvestigation and trials.

The series sparked widespread conjecture about the pair's innocence and has garnered them a massive following on social media pushing for their release.

Authorities who worked on the cases insisted the documentary is biased.

Ken Kratz, the prosecutor, wrote in his book 'Avery' that Dassey was 'a shuffling, mumbling young man with bad skin and broken-bowl haircut' who could have saved Halbach's life but instead involved himself in her rape and murder and Avery is 'by any measure of the evidence, stone guilty.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4630474/Judges-affirm-Making-Murderer-confession-coerced.html

Anonymous said...

She doesn't state she actually spoke to "this girl", only that she took the phone to try to get her to talk. The context seems to suggest she used this to heighten the drama of the moment between the two of them as it immediately precedes the "assault", and also as a narrative element in her statement to build drama for the reader. I totally agree that she's withholding information at this specific point and it's likely that whatever she is not disclosing escalated the event, given its close proximity to the violent acts.

Anonymous said...

Amanda Knox...is she wanting attention?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/creepy-costumes-and-a-cat-named-screams-an-instagram-window-on-the-weird-world-of-amanda-knox

But then she made her Instagram account public in the usual way, by tweeting about it. “What's happening? Well, I made my Instagram public. No more hoarding all my amazing cat videos.”

Boyfriend shots and cat videos aside—including many that she’s taken of her peculiarly named cat, “Screams”—some of the images on her account are curious at best.

There are those, for instance, that depict her as Little Red Riding Hood in the Black Forest in Germany with her boyfriend dressed as the Big Bad Wolf ready to pounce on her. At face value she is surely depicting herself an innocent girl in the dark woods, likely how she thought of herself when she lived in Perugia.

But it doesn’t take a scholar, or even much of a Google user, to know that Little Red Riding Hood is considered by Freud and a string of other psychoanalysts as a symbolic figure of sexual repression, abduction, and rape fantasies. A strange costume choice for a woman who once faced charges of murder and sexual assault.

(the article is cont'd in the link above).

My comments: I find it rather curious that she named her cat "Screams". Also, her depiction of herself as Little Red Riding Hood. Peter's analysis shows that she is guilty and most likely a sociopath. Is she craving attention? Does she enjoy dark humor? Any thoughts on this, Peter?

Anonymous said...

Re: Amanda Knox
How I view Little Red Riding Hood...It's a tale about how sometimes someone who seems benign & harmless (grandma) can be malicious, even murderous. I think some of those fairy tales can hold a special appeal to people who like to scare children or to scare people in general. I mean, obviously the grandma/wolf figure who has a handicap also (she can hardly see, and therefore tells Red Riding Hood to come closer so she can "see" her when she actually plans on eating her) is similar to Ted Bundy (psychopath) with his fake casts pretending to be injured and pathetic to draw people to him to "help" him when he really intended on killing them.
The take could appeal to a psychopath for sure.

The fact she named her cat "Screams" concerns me bc sometimes a person names their cat based on maybe a sound the cat makes like I had a cat that sometimes made almost warbling sounds so sometimes I would call her "My Little Birdie"...I had lots of names of affection for her. She was a little cat & she almost looked like a little horse, so sometimes I would call her "My Little Horsie". She also loved to hunt, so sometimes I would call her "My Mouser". As you can see, all these names reflecting qualities of my cat, sounds she made, things she did. So....with Amanda Knox' cat, I am concerned if her cat sometimes might "scream" because perhaps Amanda Knox hurts the cat, otherwise why would she think to call it "Screams"?

Anonymous said...

I think probably one of her parents is a psychopath who scared her as a kid. Like even the owl mask is freaky. People symptomatically show what was done to them in childhood. Someone tormented/scared her as a kid...like Michael Jackson father used to scare the hell out of him as a kid by staring into his bedroom window at night from outside wearing a fright mask. Whatever Amanda Knox is doing with these masks/costumes etc, psychoanalytically speaking, she's trying to somehow gain control/reenact frightening things done to her. She's acting it out: she is dressed as red riding hood and there is the wolf ready to pounce....someone scared her in childhood.

Violet said...

Anonymous @12:14 AM, very interesting analogy about Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf. She made her boyfriend the wolf which makes me wonder if she sees him as dangerous? Or as someone she can't trust? Or maybe she just likes to think of herself as innocent.

I thought the same thing about the cat. I hope she doesn't make it scream. Could it be that she remembers the screams that murderous night?

Anonymous @12:29 AM, If she is a psychopath it is possible she inherited it from one of her parents. Both she and a parent can be lacking that activity in the brain that gives them a consciense. Perhaps the mask also represents her disguising her real self, or her wanting to hide the truth?

Anonymous said...

@1:11, You wrote

Anonymous @12:29 AM, If she is a psychopath it is possible she inherited it from one of her parents. Both she and a parent can be lacking that activity in the brain that gives them a consciense. Perhaps the mask also represents her disguising her real self, or her wanting to hide the truth?

I believe psychopaths are created, not born that way, and yes it is from having a parent who is a psychopath that causes it.

That is really interesting what you wrote that "perhaps the mask also represents her disguising her real self, or wanting to hide the truth." Great point. Absolutely...her sitting there at the table with the owl mask even...do normal people do that? It's like she's conveying "I am hiding my true self or I am hiding what happened to me". I think that psychopaths are, deep down, very frightened people...they have to be, otherwise why would they love scaring other people? It's like they are trying to be "in control".
The picture of her as the "Awkward Greek Goddess" is very strange also, it looks like she intentionally took it from a weird angle to make herself look unattractive and awkward and the way she is holding her hand up makes it look kind of ghoulish yet the outfit itself is "beautiful"...essentially the picture is creepy for lack of a better word...it represents something about how she feels about beauty...maybe that beauty is not "truth and goodness", beauty is something else distorted...psychoanalytically i would say her mother did something to her...

Regarding the boyfriend as the wolf, and is she scared of him? Hmmmm...I see what you are saying...she might...but I have a feeling it goes back further into childhood...I feel like she is portraying "faux innocence" even her body language doesn't seem genuine that she is just innocent and unknowing about the wolf's presence...she's reenacting something very strange...almost like she is mocking innocence...if that makes sense???

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, This is my take on the statement - as one who was physically, mentally, emotionally abused in a relationship and is a reader of and is learning a lot from your blog - her starting the statement as declaring that she feels emotional doesnt jell with the principle(?) you said about emotions being in the last part of a truthful (experiential) statement. That was the first thing i noticed. The second one was her claim that she grabbed the phone from her husband. Most Victims of dv have, sadly, enough experience or know enough to not do such an aggressive act out of fear or out of the threat of being hurt/hit or be the brunt of an abuser's anger or attack. To me, either she is used to being aggressive with him and she knows that he's talking to someone intimately (again) other than his wife.

These were the red flags on the statement for me. Your analysis helped solidify and helped me further know more on the specific details I should pay attention to. Thank you.

I have another question though that may be out of topic of sort but somehow related(?)
I use statement analysis casually in conversations. I was introduced by a family friend to a person who is in a foreign country to have a possible relationship with. Having come from a dysfunctional relationship, maybe it has kept me so cautious Im not sure if Im painting myself into a lonely corner. I cant help but apply statement analysis on convesations weve had online and im not sure if im using statement analysis too much or just right or maybe i shouldnt at all?

Weve been conversing for a few months and I was beginning to like him. I tried to dismiss when he said he was described by his coworkers as an "arrogant son of a bitch". But the dealbreaker was when in an open statement he said he "can be an ass" to people who treat him bad. When i asked how he said he makes "direct snotty comments..make them look stupid."
I felt I was being forewarned and that soon when im in a bad mood, I could be the one that would be made to look stupid. or did I just overanalyze that statement?

Also, what does it mean when one says "im brutally honest, I never sugar coat my feelings, I always say what I mean and feel" and when I asked that could be interpreted as rudeness and I asked 'what if im rude to you' -- what does it mean when the response is "I hope you never are, id just walk away.." and immediately followed up by "I've never hit a woman, and never would.."


Thank you very much Peter
Or if there is anyone who would also like to put their 2 cents in, please feel free to do so.
Thanks very much.