Thursday, June 15, 2017

Derek Norris 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.  

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."

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

She spends a lot of time discussing her emotions, and giving a lead up to the night in question. She does sound very hurt. I am not trained in SA so I am confused on what to believe about this.

Peter, are you going to do an analysis on this? It's very interesting.

Peter Hyatt said...

Yes, I am just giving readers a chance to try to understand it first.

Anonymous said...

She's telling the truth & he is lying.

Bobcat said...

Her statement is highly emotional and deceptive.

His statement is sensitive. Is the sensitivity due to drinking?

JP Agee said...

He probably did what she said, grabbing her & "cornering" her. Her rambling is troubling and I wonder what she is leaving out. She skipped a week in the statement. What happened during that week? She sounds like she's trying to convince rather than convey. His use of the word "never" is also a red flag with me. He thinks his actions weren't "violent" but realizes most people would disagree with him.

He needs to see what he did was wrong, and she is a drama queen who has her own issues. Neither one of them is a particularly sympathetic figure.

Hey Jude said...

I think for at least four years she remained in the relationship whilst knowing she was not best treated, but she loved him, or the idea of him as she perceived him to be, when they first met. It sounds as though they both lived busy lives - she acknowledged she had her own issues, and says she was hesitant to say what happened because 'it was not that bad' - comparatively. I think she was accustomed to low level abuse over years, and excused it as 'sarcasm' and his not being lovely-dovey, and so on. He loved her, too, by the sounds of it, but his priority was his career, also seems he was interested in another woman.

Kristen's suitcase was already packed in the guest-room? She maybe had been planning to leave him, though maybe not, and might keep a case packed if often she travels with him. That she began with four years makes me wonder if her dissatisfaction had been growing that long, and finally it was an act of physical violence or restraint which caused her to leave - though she did not actually leave by herself, she called her mom to collect her.

She returned to her husband after speaking with his parents - perhaps she finds difficulty in making decisions independently. It did not work out, and finally she did leave him, and 'found a way to create a life' for herself.

She says she doesn't want to make him sound like 'a monster', but in posting all that she did not make him sound good. It seems somewhat vengeful to me - they both were flawed, she stayed with him longer than she knew was good for her, perhaps out of convenience, or lack of confidence to be able to 'create a life' for herself apart from him. That she posted that publicly makes me suspect she is excuse-making for herself, as to why she stayed with him so long - whilst making him the 'excuse' or reason why she stayed.

This is strange : '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' - it sounds as if she believes the media has power to 'alter my experience' - that 'denial' by the media could alter her experience, if she let it, which does not make sense, because as she also says, 'It cannot be altered'. The media could alter people's perception of the experience she describes, but it cannot alter or deny her own reality - does she possibly not feel strong in her own identity, to think and write such a thing? It sounds like a strong statement, but I don't think really that it is?

I wondered if there was some jealousy at his career success, which was further enflamed by knowledge he was in contact with another woman. It does seem, despite what she says, that she wants to take something from him, somehow, in making her statements. They were both flawed, but she highlights his issues over her own.

She speaks predominantly of 'experience' and 'situations' , and her language and pronoun use often is distancing of those - is that because she wants to distance herself from her old life, situation and experiences?

I think she is basically truthful, but there is also excuse-making in how she sees and presents her situation and experience.

From his statement, I'd say it backs up hers. Also it sounds as if he has never taken her concerns very seriously, and intends to continue in that way.






Anonymous said...

No reliable denial.

Gee why cant he say "I did not put her in a headlock and pull her hair".
He probably sand her a slow jam and told her how pretty she was to "fool" her like see I love you babe....an hour later he's on the phone with another woman.
If he wants to fool around with another woman the least he can do is not attack her when she finds out.
That's why I no longer deal with men. Nothing but a headache and for what? To have some guy you have to clean up after taking up space in my bed. I send these clowns away after I get what I want. You think I want to clean up their messes and have them in my way when I want to turn over in bed. Gimme what you got (and usually it AINT much and that's why I ain't be cleanin up their crumbs) and then get the out!

LC said...

Intent to Maximize on her part? Is she trying to convince?
I actually shouldn't comment, because I lost interest in her rambling message...

Anonymous said...

It sounds like she was the controlling one. He may have grabbed her, but I think she started it.

Peter Hyatt said...

I'll post analysis conclusion soon. I just want to give others a chance at it.

Alex said...

I think she should give the guy a break because he "plans" to go above and beyond. Now that was sarcasm!

Alex

Bobcat said...

He did aggressively restrain her, but she may have been raving mad at the time...

Anonymous said...

Good point Bobcat. Being put in a headlock is calming, romantic & it would get him his phone so he could text little hearts and kisses to his girlfriend. Win-win situation. I can't wait for Peters analysis!

Hangin' Tough said...

I bet she put him in a headlock after slow jams.

Peter Hyatt said...

I recognize that people are often afraid to post opinions that are not "politically correct" or they are concerned about feminist bullying and accusations.

Post your points, using copy/paste of her statement, to further your assertion.

Is she telling the truth?


Peter

General P. Malaise said...

her priority is usually shown in the opening statement. it is about herself and how she feels. my"ALLEGATIONS" ... this leaves room for other allegations or different versions.

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.

she see a need to persuade and spends a lot of words on everything but the allegations, praising Derek at times (HE WAS THE MOST AUTHENTIC PERSON I’VE CAME ACROSS) and disparaging him at times (DEREK WAS NOT A LOVEY DOVEY).

I think there is more to the story, I think she was restrained somewhat by Derek but it could have been in a defensive mode if she was attacking him.

I think she is basically truthful in her statements but leaving out enough to make it lopsided and deceptive.

"First,( Derek uses "first" because there is more than one issue here)

I want to be absolutely clear that abuse of any form, (he wants to be not "he is clear" )

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 ("NEVER" diminishes the strength of his denial, we would like to see "I did not .." ...which wasn't said)

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. ( "I plan to go above and beyond ...." how does one go above ..how does one go beyond. He wants this to go away and is very sensitive to the allegations and how it will impact his career.

I think he is deceptive and today this subjectivity ruling all things who isn't guilty of abuse or bullying physically and emotionally.

Bobcat said...

"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."

She is angry that her "allegations" were responded to.

What is she describing?

A Life Changing Moment
My Experience
My Experience
The Night That Changed My Life
Treating Wrong, Disrespected, and Physically Abused

"MAYBE IF I JUST DIDN’T WAKE UP AND CHECK ON HIM THIS WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED. MAYBE HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE WAS SO STRESSED, HAVING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON HIM. "

She feels closeness to "this" which happened. Is this common language of someone who has been in an abusive relationship and still feels close to her abuser?

SO MANY “MAYBE’S” TO TRY AND CHANGE A TERRIBLE NIGHT.

"SO" is the lead-in - storytelling language - to her terrible night. She is still leading up to the abusive event while already making excuses for his behavior and saying his career should not be harmed because of her allegation. A truthful statement commonly follows the 25-50-25 pattern. Hers is approximately 38-25-37.

Next, I will consider deception via skipping time and concealed information.

Bobcat said...

"WE HAD BEEN SITTING OUT ON OUR PATIO AND DEREK HAD BEEN DRINKING."

They were together. Sitting increased tension. Derek drinking is sensitive. What she also drinking?

AS IT GOT LATE I WENT TO GO TO BED AND DEREK WENT DOWNSTAIRS, AS HE WAS STILL DRINKING."

Time passed before it got late. Instead of saying, "I went to bed", she adds "to go" which indicates there was tension regarding the couple going in separate directions that evening. She went "to go" to bed. Derek went downstairs, "as he was still drinking". Had she also been drinking, but not stopped?

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.

In a truthful account, the subject will tell us what they remember. Here is a signal from the subject that they are telling us what they "remember", indicating that they may have told us what was not from memory previously. "But" she couldn't keep her eyes open. Was this a drunken fog?

I WOKE UP A LITTLE WHILE LATER. I’M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT HAD BEEN.

She is skipping over time. "I'm not sure" is akin to "I can't remember" Testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. Memory lapse from drugs may be recoverable, but not from alcohol. We need to view what the subject does remember in order to discern if there is deception present.

I FELT THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT AND I WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO FIND DEREK ON THE PHONE.

Here the subject begins major storytelling. The "phone" is extremely sensitive as is "this" girl.

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

I apologize for my fragmented "analysis" but she is deceptive and likely suffering from emotional issues that are known to her and Derek's family.

Derek's response is sensitive. Even though her allegations may have been made in an emotional rage, they will be taken seriously. He plans to go above and beyond to see that she gets the help she needs.

Anonymous said...



OK, I'll take a crack at this. I'll look at his statement first, since it's so much shorter:

"First, I want to be absolutely clear that abuse of any form, is completely unacceptable."

The opening sentence reflects Norris' main priority – the most important thing he wants his audience to know. He wants them to know that he is the kind of man who stands against abuse of any form. He wants his audience to know he's a good guy. This is convincing, not conveying.

"Allegations regarding this issue are a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly under any circumstances."

This sentence reflects an obvious truth, but it does make me wonder who it is that Norris thinks would be taking the allegations lightly.

"That being said, in this circumstance, the comments made by my ex-fiancee could not be further from the truth."

The ex-fiancee made a lot of comments. Which of her comments specifically is he referring to when he says they couldn't be further from the truth? He wants us to assume he's talking about her allegations of abuse that night, but he doesn't say so. If he doesn't tell us, we can't assume.

"I have NEVER been physically or emotionally abusive towards her, or anyone else in my life."

As has been stated many times in this blog and in books about Statement Analysis, the word "never" is not a substitute for the word "no." So this is not a good denial. Moreover, by putting the word never in capital letters, and then adding "or anyone else in my life" he's putting extra emphasis in his denial, which smells to me like an attempt to persuade.

Also, I'll have to read through her statement again, but I don't recall any allegations of emotional abuse by her. If I'm remembering correctly and she didn't allege any emotional abuse, it's very odd that he would go out of his way to mention it here. In any event, he lists the physical abuse first.

"I plan to go above and beyond to assist MLB with their investigation into this matter."

What stands out to me here is where he says "I plan" to go above and beyond to assist the investigation. That's not the same thing as saying he is helping them, or will definitely help them. Right now, it's just a "plan." Plans can change.

Anonymous said...

P. S.

Another problem with Norris'denial is that it is non-specific. He never addresses the events of the night in question and says he didn't put her in a chokehold or grab her by the hair. Instead he issues a blanket denial that he has never been physically or emotionally abusive towards her or any other woman at any point in his life.

And yes, the more I think about it, the more the extra emphasis in his denial bothers me. It reminds me a bit of when O.J. claimed he was "absolutely 100% not guilty."

Linda Lazo said...

I'm more disturbed that she spent four years in college and this is how she writes. Her priorities jump off the page in the first few lines. Me, me, me. A lot of narrative building, emotion throughout, immature excuse making, and total evidence of a rocky relationship. That's just the beginning.

Linda Lazo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Linda Lazo said...

They are both using deceptive language. And persuasive language. That he's never been emotionally abusive to anyone in his life is a complete lie no matter who's mouth it comes out of. She's telling you only what she wants you to know, skipping ovwr, and we still have no details about the actual altercation. Both of them are bringing others into it which leads me to believe that they live in a very public way with a big social circle. If he takes no responsibility for his actions it's okay, she's got a hundred excuses ready for him. What a pair.

Linda Lazo said...

That was very good!

Linda Lazo said...

She put controlling first on that list. I think she started it too. But he's guilty. His statement is referring to other people and what is acceptable. Huh??

Linda Lazo said...

Very good points. Catching "I plan" especially, it's like "prepared" or "tried". Does it happen? Usually not.

Linda Lazo said...

She put controlling first on that list. I think she started it too. But he's guilty. His statement is referring to other people and what is acceptable. Huh??

Lettice Knollys said...

She is lying. She takes for ages to come to the point, and rambles on. He is telling the truth. However, I think he may have had to restrain her at some point, because she seems insane-ish.

Men are allowed to hold back women, and even remove them from an unwanted situation. Shocking, I know.. And yes, that was sarcasm.

Anonymous said...

"Men are allowed to hold back women"

No, actually they are not allowed to do that. Restraining someone against their will is a crime. A police officer told me that a long time ago. Dont bother arguing about it either--just look up the law.

Anonymous said...

It's called "unlawful restraint". If his intention for restraining her was to keep her from picking up/talking on his phone, that is illegal. He does not have legal justification for doing that. It is a crime.

Anonymous said...

Stealing someone's phone is also illegal. As are making false allegations.

Anonymous said...

"Remove them from an unwanted situation"

Go ahead and do those things to a woman and see if the law agrees with you. No, you are not allowed legally to "remove" someone from "an unwanted situation". Your language implies uses force and restraint within situations that you simply don't like...that is not legal justification. If he didnt like her picking up his phone, he does NOT have legal justification to physically restrain her or remove her. THATS A LEGAL FACT!

Anonymous said...

Anon, she didnt "steal" his phone lmao! She picked the phone up in her own home and attempted to talk on it. Do you think a cop would have arrested her for robbery LMFAO!!!! If I pick up my husband's remote control and attempt to change the channel will I be arrested for robbery? GET A LIFE!!!!

Anonymous said...

Is her name on the deed? Does she pay rent/mortgage? Does she pay his phone bill?

Anonymous said...

It doesnt matter! That's like saying if I pick up something in a store and walk into another aisle with it, I have committed robbery. Get a brain. Or try it sometime. Call the cops on someone who picks up your phone in your house and tries to talk on it and see if they arrest them for robbery. Moronic.

Anonymous said...

Anon, Just cause your Mommy probably pats you on the head and says poor baby if your girlfriend picks up your phone in a house where you and your girlfriend both dwell, doesnt mean the law condemns it or would prosecute it since it is a NOT BREAKING ANY LAW.
So Stupid, just as the analysis by people on the Bree thread who obviously have never even seen a fistfight or they would realize Bree's injuries were not done by someone defending themselves. Self-defense, BY THE LAWS DEFINITION is NOT giving someone 2 black eyes, kicking someone in the face, kicking them in the ribs & dragging them 12 feet by their hair.
Im disgusted with both of these threads bc how pointless for people to analyze assaults (which are much different than murders/missing person cases) if they do not understand the law regarding fights/assaults/self-defense/restraint etc.
Why would anyone find "evidence" within linguistics to determine Bree's injuries were done by someone defending themselves WHEN THE LAW WOULD NOT AGREE. SELF-DEFENSE IS USING MINIMAL FORCE.

Anonymous said...

Peter determined Bree was familiar with her attacker, therefore the whole bit about the 3 random strangers inflicting the violence CANT BE TRUE. Did she talk to 3 random strangers? Sure. Were they the attackers? No.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Peter determined Bree was familiar with her attacker, therefore the whole bit about the 3 random strangers inflicting the violence CANT BE TRUE. Did she talk to 3 random strangers? Sure. Were they the attackers? No.
June 18, 2017 at 2:55 PM


Where did I determine that the subject was familiar with her attacker?

I think you may be misinterpreting my words here. double check and let me know.


Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

You can restrain someone from assaulting you. It is self defense.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, I don't know if I may have misinterpreted...I thought she had some familiarity with her attacker...within your analysis you wrote

"When a person attacks another, the attacker's qualities are not in question nor in need of address: he is an attacker and this, alone, tells his character.

The she feels it necessary to visit his characteristics tells us that there was interaction between them that she is not disclosing but that she expected better behavior from him.

This is not consistent with an unknown attacker. "

I just get the feeling also by her use of phrases such as " the man then came back for more" it sounds like maybe there is familiarity of some kind with him, but maybe not.
I don't know...the story is very strange.

Peter Hyatt said...

I see what you mean, that is why I thought misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

She does not indicate that she knows him, but the familiarity is strictly to their interaction. Perhaps it was me who should have made this clearer.

She uses language that tells us that there is "familiarity" within the statement; not that she knows him, but that they had two way communication. This is not the language of a stranger attacker, but of a stranger of whom there is such interaction that she can make judgement on his character.

I should have made it clearer. She did not know the man she got into a fight with, but became familiar with him due to communication.

Does that make sense? Otherwise, I will add it to the analysis. I do not want to leave the impression that she knew him before this night.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter, It does make sense, thank you for explaining, it seems more my misinterpretation, I dont think you need to change the analysis. I understand what you are saying.

Hey Jude said...

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

—-

Some more thoughts.

AS THIS SITUATION IS ALL TOO COMMON IN THE WORLD, NOT JUST THE WORLD OF SPORTS, BUT THE WORLD.
That is major generalisation. I find it questionable why she says all that, as if she is needs to align herself with others, yet so vaguely, rather than giving her account plainly. It is as if she needs to ‘borrow’ credibility somehow - ‘situation’ and ‘experience’ sound weak and unconvincing in context. I find those to be quite relaxed words, and would expect her to say ‘horrendous experience’ or ‘intolerable situation’ at least.


A PERSON WHO IS ABUSIVE DOES NOT REALIZE THEY ARE, OR THINK THEY ARE.
She is speaking of ‘a person’ as though that could be her husband or anyone in the world (of sport), yet so far does not properly identify him. At the same time it is not as if she is trying to conceal his identity - why doesn’t she just say plainly who it is she is referring to? I wondered if she could maybe have been unintentionally referring to herself? (Why later)

ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE PEOPLE, FANS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS GLORIFY THE PERSON FOR A SKILL THEY SPEND THEIR LIFE PERFECTING

I don’t understand the logic there - if he is made vain in his professional life by praise, how would that cause him to ‘not realize’ he was abusive towards his wife? She still doesn’t name her husband as the abusive person. She is unhappy that his priority is his sport -and, I think, with the attention it brings him. I think that because she used ‘glorify’ - more usually reserved for God - she disapproves of him being glorified by fans, family and friends.

So - she has referred to ‘a person’ non-specific, then leaps into the next sentence with herself - ‘AS I AM WAITING..’ as she is the only person she has actually introduced and identified thus far, I wonder is she connecting ‘a person who is abusive’ with herself? Is it that ‘a person’ often means the speaker is thinking of him or herself? Is it sensitive that she says ‘a person does not realize’ - if so, in relation to whom is that sensitive? I think to herself.

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

Not really - she could have gone for a walk, phoned a friend, taken a nap, and not had a ‘formal’ meeting. She chose to publicise their break-up and to tarnish his professional image in the process. Is the fact it was a ‘formal’ meeting important to her?

‘Racing heart and shaking hands’ - could be as much due to excitement as to nervousness.

I think she spins out what she is saying in an attempt to create the impression that she is reluctant to name and shop him, when she is not reluctant.

---

That’s as far as I have got today.

tania cadogan said...

Regarding the pulling by her hair.
It is usually a woman thing that when they fight, they grab and pull at each others hair.
I don't see men going for the hair regardless of length.

I wonder if women go for it as it is regarded as a sign of beauty, a woman's pride and joy and by pulling it they are destroying it and by default her beauty.

It is often seen with black women in cat fights where they pull and tear at each others hair as they are usually wearing a wig or weave and by pulling the fake hair off, the real hair is revealed and it is often not that pretty to look at what with poor perming and short length.

Also when hair is pulled out in chunks it takes a long time to grow back and may result in the woman having to have a major haircut/restyle to hide the damage.
She is marked until it grows out or she wears a wig/weave.

Anonymous said...

Tania, that is true, it is usually women who go for the hair, especially black women. One exception though: One often reads of male abusers grabbing, dragging, pulling their abused partner by the hair.

Anonymous said...

Also, and this is just general info, when you get a perp attacking the neck, head or hair, this is a red flag of a more dangerous perp.

Anonymous said...

Im not sure she is lying. She may be being a little overdramatic, but that's just me...if a guy put me a headlock and pulled my hair it would just blur in with all the violence Ive experienced in my life & I doubt it would give me nightmares, but I think for someone else it could be disturbing...a headlock is kind of scary, borderline strangling...it's definitely not comforting. Was he squeezing her neck interfering with breathing? That is scary.

Brian Delaney said...

Truthful accounts percentages are normally in the region of 25%:50%:25%. The percentages for Kirsten’s account are approx.. 40%: 20% 40%

Expected vs unexpected language: For a serious case of domestic abuse I would expect some of the following:

Mental abuse: he constantly criticised me, he belittled me, he undermined me
Physical abuse: he shouted at me, he roared at me, he hurt me, he grabbed me, he intimidated me etc, bruises, pain….

There is no anger or description of any dialogue between them.

None of this language is present in the account.

She describes the domestic violence as:
“My experience” x 4
“This situation”
“With those interactions”

Not what we would expect

Her priorities are
I HOPE MULTIPLE WOMEN CAN READ THIS AND GET OUT OF
(1) CONTROLLING SITUATIONS
(2) ABUSIVE SITUATIONS
(3) MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DRAINING SITUATIONS.

She does not specifically state “violent situations”.

Her account:

He was drinking and she wanted to go to bed. There appears to have been an argument at this point due to the repeated “as he was drinking” but she does not state that there was an argument. Missing information.
“I’m not sure how long it had been” – confirming something in the negative (sensitivity).
A female’s voice “stating”. Why stating , why not saying ?
I took the phone – took indicates it was not given. It is likely she grabbed the phone from his hand and she is using minimizing language.
She “walked up our stairs” and “approached our kitchen island” –using the verbs “walked” and “approached” seems to be minimizing language as it would appear that this was in the middle of a heated argument although she does not state that this was the case – why not ?
“I approached our kitchen island with the phone in my hand “ - why the need to tell us she had the phone in her hand. She had already told us that she took the phone “to try to get this girl to talk to me”. Why the need to explain ?
“Derek approached me from behind and put me in a choke hold” – approached seems to be minimizing language again – is she story telling - “and put me in a choke hold” – we would expect to hear something here about how she couldn’t breath, how she panicked, how painful this was and later the after affects(eg. a sore neck etc). This is a big strong man. Was he simply reaching over her to try to get the phone back in the middle of this argument. It appears she may have been running away with the phone and he was asking for it back and she wouldn’t give it. Some kind of tussle ensued.
She plays the innocent here “I thought he wanted the phone”
“I threw the phone on the (not ours anymore) kitchen island and tried to get away”
“Derek then grabbed me by the back of my hair to pull me back to him” - why the explanation ?
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….”. She does not say that this grabbing caused any her pain (or later bruising) She used the same verb grabbed to describe when she gets her own phone and her suitcase. Eventually suggests missing information – she doesn’t say she begged him to let go or she struggled.
After this I tried to go to our bedroom….” - from this point on it appears he is trying to convince her to stay or to resolve the issues. Again there is missing information such as what was said by either party.

Summary: There are some signs of deception. She over explains her actions whilst omitting expected information. She tries to justify her part in the argument though she never once actually states that there was an argument –why not ?

Norris statement does not contain a reliable denial and he uses the dreaded “never”. However this may have been worded by his solicitor and he is not likely to admit that he got drunk and had an argument with his partner because he appeared to be cheating.

Bobcat said...

"Derek approached me from behind and put me in a choke hold."

Put me in a choke hold is somewhat passive. She doesn't say "he choked me". Therefore, we can not say it for her.


"I threw the phone onto the kitchen island and tried to get away."

Tried means attempt but fail. She should still be with Derek and not away from him at this point.


"DEREK THEN GRABBED ME BY THE BACK OF MY HAIR TO PULL ME BACK TO HIM."

There is something missing before Derek "then" pulled her back to him. First she "tried" to get away. "Then" she was away when he grabbed her to pull her back. Missing information. Also, she relays why Derek pulled her 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 is more passing time for Derek to "Eventually" let her go, after grabbing "the back of" her hair to pull her back to him. How long did he grab her? What is "the back of her hair"? Did he grab her head? Did he grab her hair? Her description seems intentionally noncommittal.


"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.


She chooses "aggressive" to describe how he "laid his hands" on her. She does not say "violent" or "injurious"; therefore we can not say it for her.


BUT THEY WEREN’T, AND I HAD WORDS HURT ME AND HIS TOUCH HURT ME.

Again, she uses the soft word "touch" as what hurt her. She does not say "attack" or "abuse"; therefore we can not say it for her.

Peter Hyatt said...

Some interesting comments.

The balance of an account is a reliability issue; not so much "truthful."

25/50/25 suggests reliability in an account, but when motive shifts, we see this move to an area of "unreliable."

Unreliable does not always mean deceptive, just as weakness can be appropriate or inappropriate.

More to follow....I will probably put the analysis in a new article. I am working on some Employment Analysis articles, including narcissism in language and the language of thievery.

Even for those who do not train, this is useful as gauging co workers, superiors, etc. (it's always relevant in relationships).

By the way, this comment of mine is also a hint. :)

Peter

Brian Delaney said...

There is so much omitted from her account.

I think the key is as Peter hints at above that her account is fundamentally unreliable.

The icing on the cake for me is that she posted this "story" with a picture of her lying on a bed in her underwear reading a book entitled Watching Baseball Smarter" and smiling.

rob said...

I find the fact that she felt the need to post this on social media the biggest problem. If you've been attacked, call 911, pack up and leave, but the need to tell her story to the masses on social media, ummm, seems like she has an agenda.
I think she wants out, but with a pocket full of money. they are not yet married, so maybe she is not entitled to it? But getting the story out there, maybe he'll be willing to buy her off to shut her up?
If he wanted another woman, why not just tell her, it's over, get out.

rob said...

Brian Delaney, I agree, she definitely doesn't look like she's suffering in her post

https://www.instagram.com/p/BU_DVRbBUqh/?hl=en

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: What did North Korea do to that college kid? He was walking right (when he got back to US)? I read he was "in a state of unresponsive wakefulness & had suffered a severe neurological injury of unknown origin". What could that possibly be? Head injury? Lobotomy (wouldnt they have seen a scar)? Shellshock?
I just think it's so weird bc that is not even a diagnosis--"unresponsive wakefulness"? Are they not the least bit curious to figure out what exactly happened to him? It is really surprising too bc he was young & healthy...even if he was tortured/traumatized, how did that turn a young person into a non responsive zombie who then DIED!!! I feel like they must have lobotomies him. I feel like we are not being told the truth about what happened to him. Any thoughts?

Lettice Knollys said...

I can only repeat that men are allowed to hold back women, and vice versa. Or remove them from an unwanted situation. It is called self defense. If I were to hit my husband, he would be allowed to stop me, by taking my hands or removing me.

Likewise, if he hit me, I would be allowed to try to stop him.


Luckily, after thirty years of marriage, that has never been an issue :)

I am from Europe, but I hope the law in USA protects men and women who are being assaulted.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe US companies do trips through North Korea. That place is WAY too dangerous--they should know that!!! I have NO IDEA why we dont free all the generations of prisoners and then carpet bomb the concentration camps over there. Kim Jong-Un HAS NO POWER when faced with actual military might. SO STUPID we let him have his fake rulership!!!!!

Hey Jude said...

Oh - I assumed they were married, probably because they had been together for so long - though is it usual to call a kitchen island 'ours' - iDK.

Violet said...

Anonymous at 1:15 PM, Otto was not walking when he returned to the US. He was in a coma. "Unresponsive wakefulness" is a politically correct way of saying a vegetative state. It was determined this was caused by brain damage from respiratory arrest. He did not show signs of having had broken/healing bones or damage to his skull.

Causes of respiratory arrest could be overdose, an infection such as pneumonia, a stroke, inhaling dangerous fumes, etc. He was no doubt abused and this likely led to his condition. He was sent home to die. His family had to make a decision whether to continue his care or to let him pass. Obviously they decided letting him linger was no way of life for a once energetic, life loving young man who held so much promise.

The family chose not to do an autopsy. Maybe they decided he had been through enough? Or maybe the doctors gave them a theory on the cause of death and they were comfortable with that. Hopefully the medical examiner can determine what happened and at least give them a little bit of closure.

Anonymous said...

@12:50, Im not buying the heart attack theory. They are saying oxygen deprivation to the brain...how does that lead them to conclude heart attack? They are saying massive areas of missing brain tissue. Again, that's not from a heart attack. Have you ever heard of a 22 yr old ending up in a state like that from a "heart attack"? Why would he have even had a "heart attack"?
The parents, understandably, prob dont want to know what was done to him.
My guess: They surgically did something to his brain. How was he kept alive all that time over there if he had been been vegatstive for any length of time? He looks like he had been eating. Any bed sores?
Either that or they gave him pills that they have developed that would cause that kind of damage. Look at the leakage in their language (botulism, sleeping pill). "Sleeping pill" could be this damage was caused by pills they have developed OR sleeping pill could be leakage he was put under anasthesia to operate on his brain to cause the damage.
The world does not know many things that go on in North Korea. We should have freed their prisoners & carpet bombed their concentration camps a long time ago. Suposedly North Korea is "powerless" hermit kingdom, yet everyone seems petrified to strike at them militarily. What I think: There is a reason their totalitarian regime has far outlasted any other--usually by their very nature they can not last long. I don't know what it is, but apparently the world is afraid of North Korea, the powerless hermit kingdom....The world turns a blind eye to their concentration camps. Why? If they are powerless why didnt we bomb them to get Otto back?

Anonymous said...

Otto had been in a coma for a year. No way was that a heart attack. They prob gave him a pill with some kind of "chemical weapon" in it that caused that extensive damage. Or gassed him w a chemical weapon. Prob used him as a guinea pig and also to flex their muscles to the world like "try to figure out what we did to him haha".
I will lose a lot of respect for Trump if he doesnt punish N Korea for doing that to Otto.

Anonymous said...

Trump should order the military to kill Kim Jong-UN....the North Korean people would be thrilled & I am sure most of the North Korean army would be thrilled too considering their lives suck too & they are not even fed. Free the prisoners, carpet bomb the concentration camps, do some food drops. Let the country see how great it feels to eat. They will gladly adopt a different system...the N Korean people HATE living in that system. It would be easy, a mass celebration.

Peter Hyatt said...

The issue here is truth versus deception.

It is not morality.
It is not size.
It is not strength
It is not the roles of men and women
It is not personal experience in D/V
It is not relationships.
There is no need to condemn assault, nor need to justify.


These are all elements outside the boundary of the exercise.

The comments are helpful and show how training must overcome personal projection and opinion. Analysts seek the truth, even if the subject is disagreeable. We seek truth even if motive is illicit or provocative.

Peter