Monday, October 9, 2017

Vegas Terrorist Shooter's Girlfriend Denies Knowledge of Killing

A number of people have asked about the statement that Marilou Danley  released through her attorney.  

The Sheriff said that the killer may have been "radicalized" and did not likely act alone.  He also said that the shooter intended to survive and continue to another killing.  It was planned, financed, trained and it was methodical. 

His girlfriend, Marilou Danley received $100,000 from Stephen Paddock just prior to the attack and was a "person of interest."

The statement is made through her attorney. 

 This is a reminder for analysts:

We are analyzing the statement, not the person, as it could be her words and her words and the  words of her attorney.

What does the statement tell us?

Question:  Does the girlfriend show knowledge of his intention?

Does she give a reliable denial of knowledge or suspicion of Stephen Paddock's killing? 

The question most have revolves around the context.  

A well planned and well executed attack left 59 dead.
Weapons were amassed and the skill, strength and tactics were needed to commit these acts.  

Corporate media, the elite  and politicians are blaming anything but ideology (motive) including weapons, medication,  mental health issues, and gambling debts. One even said "we may never know the true motive."  


Regarding the note left behind, one said it wasn't helpful because it was "personal, to him."

It is very likely that this note, through the lens of Statement Analysis, would prove of value.  

Politicians and main stream media refuse to look into ideology, or motive for the killings while sometimes reporting outright false points. 

This is not the biggest gun violence in the West.  The largest killing via gun violence took place in one of the strictest gun law nations.  In Norway,  Anders Behring Breivik killed 85 victims using a gun.  

Here is his girlfriend's denial of knowledge: 


“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” 
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Let's look at it again, using Statement Analysis.  In this analysis, we break down the statement into small parts examine or analyze, and then put it back together again. 
“It never occurred to me 
Instead of saying, "I did not know he was going to do this" the statement began without the pronoun "I."  A statement that begins with the pronoun "I" means the subject is putting herself, psychologically, into the statement.  This is called "linguistic commitment."
Instead, she uses a "passive voice" of what "never occurred to" her. This is to use language that reflects a general indirect obtainment of knowledge.  
It also uses the word "never" rather than "I did not know..." with the verb "never" being unreliable for the purposes of classification.  It is to avoid the strong "did not", and it comes after a passive, rather than active and directive, introduction.  
"I did not know he was going to do this" would be very strong and would not need an attorney's approval or guidance. This would begin with "I", go to "did not" and "do this", would bring the obvious (shooting) close to her, psychologically with "this."  

We now see that she begins without stating with herself in the statement, uses qualification with her denial:

"It never occurred to me in any way " uses the unnecessary qualifier of "in any way."

*missing pronoun "I" is the first signal of weakness. 
"Occurred to me" using passivity is second signal of weakness. 
"never" is unreliable (3rd point of weakness) and now we have 
the unnecessary emphasis of "in any way" as the fourth point of sensitivity (weakness), but she is not done yet: 

It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone, 
The subject adds "whatsoever" as another attempt to persuade us. 

Now, add in "violence against anyone" as unnecessary directing towards the victims.  
The victims do not need to be pointed out:  59 dead, 500 injured.  
At this point, the statement is so weak that suspicion that she knew is likely to be very high. 
Yet, the statement continues: 

He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

1.  "never" is not "did not" is unreliable. Lance Armstrong "never" took PEDs.  He was incapable of saying "I did not take PEDs.
2.  "to me" is specified.  Did he say something to others that she is aware of?  Did he write or type things?  This puts the emphasis upon self, even while being unreliable.  
3.  Action:  Let's look at what she said about "any action"

a.  Action that she was aware of.  Would she need identify something she was not aware of?
This is unnecessary unless because she is acknowledging the possibility of action that she was "not aware" of.  This is an unnecessary qualification.  
He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.
b. "that I understood" is now a qualification of Paddock's actions. This is to acknowledge that he did take actions that she was aware of, but she did not "understand" them to be violent. 
"That I was aware of" was first qualifier of action. 
"that I understood" is the second.  
The subject  is not done yet: 

c.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

"in any way" now should cause investigators to learn of his actions' expressions in various means.  The subject is broadening the scope. 

d.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.

Here is the center of the subject's denial:  "to be a warning."

It is unreliable and it is heavily qualified and it is about something specific:
her understanding, interpretation, or grasping of "warning."

This is to specifically avoid saying "He did not tell me he was going to kill people" and instead gives us an unreliable and heavily qualified specifically classified  denial "warning."  
This should cause suspicion that the subject did not need to be "warned" because of "agreement."

Analysis Conclusion:
The statement is an  Unreliable Denial
The statement increases suspicion and it should increase the scope of his communications from simply speaking to her, to his communication to others as well as possible complicity in this terrorist attack.  

If this attack was not used for exploitation, the public would have greater confidence in the investigation.  


To be trained in Statement Analysis, at your department, company or in your home, go to Hyatt Analysis Services to enroll. 

We have specific seminars for Law Enforcement, as well as business professionals, social workers (including child abuse investigators), journalists, Human Resources, etc. 

We also offer a unique service in which a team of professionals is convened to identify the author of Anonymous Threatening Letters. 

We have an Advanced Course for those who have successfully completed training and offer Certification including Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine for professional licensing renewal requirements.  

Special seminars for advanced private investigators.  

We also have openings for businesses who want Employment analysis to sift out those who are deceptive, and intend to exploit your company, generally through fraudulent claims.  We can either teach your Human Resources, or can work as sub contractors.  

If you or your business receives an anonymous threatening letter, we can identify the author for you or your attorneys.  Contact:

hyattanalysis@gmail.com for rates. 









30 comments:

Anonymous999 said...

There are have been many personal accounts of a shooting at the time down at the Bellagio. I know someone who was at the Bellagio and heard those shots. Media and police are not speaking about it. You tube videos are being removed that talk about it (though I was able to find a couple). The front door of the Bellagio was shot out. I've never been big on conspiracies, but someone is trying to keep the truth out in this case.

Lucia D said...

Thank you for analyzing her statement, Peter. It is crazily worded, like she is hedging everything she says in case she needs to change it later. Unreliable indeed. To believe that statement is to strain credulity to the breaking point. If she has guilty knowledge that could have prevented the mass murder I hope she is prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

She is quoted as saying, in part:
"He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

That's a painfully slowed down "pace" and over-expression of "He neither said nor did anything that made me think he would do this." She avoids the active voice and in doing so, she avoids having to attribute actions to him directly, which weakens her assertions that she was in the dark about this completely before it happened.

She's parsing this out three ways:
1. The action
2. Her awareness of the action
3. Her understanding of that awareness of that action

She can't understand or not understand something she's not aware of, and she can't be aware of something she has no knowledge of in the first place. She doesn't say she was unaware of his actions, just that of the actions she had awareness of, she had no reason to draw a particular conclusion. The fact she broke this aspect of her statement down so particularly means these are all areas of sensitivity for her: his actions, her awareness, and her understanding. She's addressing these areas as indicators or warnings, not as expressions of intent specifically. She goes a long way to suggest to the reader that she had no idea of his intentions specifically, and that may very well be true, but she does not actually say she did not know or suspect he "intended" to do this; therefore, we can't conclude that's what she "meant" for us to know. By parsing out actions/awareness/understanding as she has, it allows her to avoid having to express the issue of whether she, either directly or indirectly, had reason to conclude he had malicious intent; even if she didn't know specific details. I believe that's also underscored by the passive voice and the fact she qualified the specific comments or actions known or made "to me" but did not address what others may have witnessed or known, or what was possibly made known to her by others.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A father from Newton County, Georgia has been caught and arrested after his new-born daughter was discovered dead in the woods near a trailer park in Georgia on Sunday.

Chris McNabb, who has been named a person of interest, fled shortly after Caliyah McNabb, his daughter, was discovered behind the Eagle Point Trailer Park.

Her body was found by volunteer searchers wrapped in a blue cloth in a duffel bag in the woods.

McNabb and his girlfriend, Courtney Bell had first reported their daughter missing on Saturday morning.

Caliyah's parents, Chris and Courtney Bell, called police after they noticed their daughter had disappeared Saturday morning.

They told officials that Caliyah was fine when they fed and changed her at 5 a.m. Saturday but five hours later when they went into her bedroom she had gone.

Police said the situation was 'suspicious,' according to WSBTV and the case went from a missing child incident to a homicide.

'A Fifteen-day-old child obviously didn't leave by themselves,' Newton County Sheriff's Dept. Capt. Keith Crum said.

Volunteers were searching a wooded area near the home of the family Sunday when they discovered the infant's body under a log.

Police went looking for McNabb Sunday evening, as according to Crum, McNabb was in his girlfriend's car when he found out that his daughter's body had been found.

He allegedly jumped out of the car at the intersection of Highway 36 and Covington By-Pass Road and ran away.

Officials then found him at a gas station car wash where they arrested him immediately on a probation violation.

He is currently the only person being named a person of interest in his daughter's death, according to CBS.

Bell was taken to police headquarters where she gave a statement, however she has not been named a person of interest in the case.

The child's body is currently being held at a coroner's office where an autopsy will take place.

It will be conducted at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation headquarters so officials can determine the child's identity and exact cause of death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962876/Georgia-father-arrested-two-week-old-dead.html



Bastards the pair of them.

Anon "I" said...

..."that I was aware of"....

I was aware, embedded confession?

Rob said...

O/T




I’m sending her a copy as well. However if she needs a job Mcdonalds is always hiring her kind.

1. “I’m” – subject alone and present in this sentence
2. “a copy” doesn’t say a copy of what
3. “as well” extra words – mask off here revealing proper English.
4. “However” – mask off – properly used English and educated
5. “if she needs a job” – doesn’t view the work done at the daycare as only a job. The daycare to the subject mind is more than just “a job.”
6. “always” – extra word

7. “I’m” and “her kind” furthest apart – distancing
8. “I’m sending her a copy as well” – do they have contact information for her? An employer would. She has importance here for the writer.


So work your magic and make it disappear!!!

1. “So” conversational, informal, threat weakened
2. “work your” –
3. “work your magic and make it disappear” – child language, does writer have experience with the recipient of the letter working magic ?
4. “it” language change – consider “it” isn’t the “black girl” but something else. Consider they want the “MORTAGE” to disappear
5. “!!!” need to persuade

P.S. Just trying “TO MAKE YOUR DAYCARE GREAT AGAIN.”

1. Doesn’t begin with I – subject takes themselves out of this statement
2. “P.S.” used correctly – mask off again, properly used post script
3. “Just” – weakens threat
4. “trying” attempting, unsuccessful, present tense – current trying
5. “YOUR DAYCARE” not “the daycare” which is a change in language– acknowledgement at last that the daycare belongs to the recipient of the letter. This was either difficult for them to say or the mask has come off here. Consider the subject may be having trouble acknowledging the daycare is “YOUR DAYCARE”

6. Capitals – need to persuade
7. “AGAIN” extra unnecessary word – took extra effort to add this word – knowledge of the daycare before – history with this daycare.
8. Hina clause – explaining why
9. Entire sentence is language of an older parent giving advice and longing for how things used to be.


Analysis Conclusion:

Threat for letter – lethality weak

Subject is likely an educated person – “nor”, “However” “P.S.”

Subject may be an older person 40+ - uses words that are outdated like nationalities, eyesore, Nanny, blend more, her kind, and black girl and is wanting the daycare to be great again.

Subject may be a parent of children but not a child at the daycare- “the choice is yours! Choose wisely remember” parent nagging language, a need to teach “remember,” clear pronoun separation from the parents in the daycare. Consider parent of adult children in charge of the daycare.

Subject may be female – Nagging, repeating self, priority of child over parents, informal and conversational language. Has a need to be in the herd when she is talking about the “black girl” but separates into “I” when giving advice, concern for how things look (parents walking into the daycare, looking like a Nanny.)

Subject may have a business connection/history with the daycare with concerns for paying the mortgage and/or may have the responsibility for paying the mortgage – it has importance here in this writing and in the subjects mind – their concern is for parents that will “pull” kids out of daycare, parents paying the mortgage, the black girl is “working for” the daycare illuminating their focus on the daycare benefiting from the work, and making the daycare great “again.”

sperming (using words) uses distancing language throughout around the “black girl” in relation to the subject herself and the daycare.

The hog devil hopes the daycare owners “make her aware she isn’t wanted” and “maybe hire a light skinned black” which is soft and weak given the purported reason for the writing is the scandalous black girl working there. The “choose wisely” is buttressed by “WE PARENTS PAY YOUR MORTAGE”. Mostly the subject wants “it” to disappear. The reason for the writing may be the subject wants the Mortgage to disappear, hOGS financial issues to disappear?

Rob

Anonymous said...

This statement was most likely written by the FBI with the knowledge that the statement will be interpreted by the co-conspirators. Thus, the language should be interpreted as having two purposes:
1.) Reduce probability that the co-conspirators will act to harm Marilou or her family.
2.) Make Marilou believe that the FBI believes her denials of knowledge so that she will be more likely to communicate openly (if she is in fact a co-conspirator).

emma h said...

I'm so glad you added this, Peter, as I thought Marilou said a lot (by not saying anything).

I think given she is supposed to be extraverted, that may explain why she over emphasises her 'not knowing' - however you are right that more information is needed.

One interesting comment she made (I believe)

"I knew Stephen Paddock as a kind, caring, quiet man. I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together with him"

Hoped for a quiet future together - suggests things weren't quiet between them.

It's odd she repeats 'quiet' - meaning this is a sensitive area for her.

Keep up the good work! I love your blog.

Charlotte said...

I am Norwegian, and my son's best friend lost his mother on Utøya in 2011.
There will never be another crime like that.

Breivik walked up to everyone of his victims, and shot them three times, point blank. He stood right in front of scared teenagers and shot them in the head. Breivik later said that it was nothing like seen on tv. The youths just stood there, waiting to be shot. They were so terryfied, they couldn't move.

This is a level of insanity and evil that will never be happen again. Due to being on an island, no one could escape.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anon "I" said...
..."that I was aware of"....

I was aware, embedded confession?
October 9, 2017 at 8:25 PM


No, but I understand your reason for asking. It is a qualifier (1) that is unnecessary (2) unless it is necessary. :).

Peter

~mj said...

Another comment that was made - that seemed off, was her brother repeating what she had told him via a telephone conversation. (Naturally, we have to be cautious as to the validity of this comment, in that it is not a direct quote from her and has been filtered down through the media, but in the event it is the GF's exact words, they are odd)

Her brother is quoted as quoting her to say, " ...I'll fix it. Do not panic. I have a clean conscience..."

Christina-Marie Wright said...

OT:

I don’t have time to transcribe this, but the 911 call from the mother on baby Caliyah raises quite a few flags:

https://www.covnews.com/news/crime/breaking-ncso-investigating-missing-baby/

GeekRad said...

Marilou's statement is riddled with qualifiers. How much of it is her words and how much the attorney's words. Surely some of it is a direct quote. Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever understand the motive here. This is a tough one for investigators.

rob (original) said...

What gets me about this case is, LE says he planned to live thru this and had an escape plan. Was he going to escape with all those guns? Why did he take so many guns into the room? Two guns and multiple magazines, loaded with ammo is all that was needed. Why so many? If he planned to escape, what did he want LE to think when finding all those guns?
Also, he'd been in the room multiple days. Plenty of time to look out the windows and decide what the best vantage point for shooting the venue was. Why break out 2 windows? Why two places to shoot from?
Every hotel I know of in Vegas has video everywhere. when the football player knocked his wife out, it was caught on camera in the elevator. Hard for me to believe there is not film of everytime he went in or out the hotel, the room, in the hallway, the elevator. they should be able to show every move he made while there, and the maid (or someone) should have been in the room every 24 hours, even if he had to 'do not disturb' up. What did they see? was the room tidy? where was the weapons?
A lot of questions here.
The girlfriend leaving and receiving the money just before the crime looks hinky. The brothers interviews make him look like a talker who thinks he can talk his way out of knowing what he knows.
There has to be a reason for this, but what is it?

Anonymous said...

what is the mental health of someone who keeps posting even though all of her posts are deleted?

Bobcat said...

OT: Harvey Weinstein Denial through spokeswoman

In a statement on Tuesday, his spokeswoman, Sallie Hofmeister, said: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. He will not be available for further comments, as he is taking the time to focus on his family, on getting counseling and rebuilding his life.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html

Alex said...

911 call from mother of baby Caliyah.

911: What's your emergency?

Mother: I just woke up...my daughter just woke me up....

Isn't that similar to what Misty Croslin said?

Alex

Anonymous said...

Right- he's gonna be focusing on his family, getting therapy & rebuilding his life-

Could he make a sincere statement, or at least send out one that sounds like himself?






New England Water Blog said...

So far LV appears to be a hoax, no let me say that it IS a hoax. The only blood I've seen is fake. The witnesses are absurd and unconvincing crisis actors. The story is rife with contradictions top to bottom. The supposed lair of Paddock shows a handful of spent cartridges when there should be thousands and dozens of magazines but they are not there. People were supposedly shot in the head and treated at the hospital without their hair being shaven around the wound, are you kidding me?
Hoax with no deaths and all you brilliant SA people ought to be intelligent and dispassionate enough to see the gaping holes in the story at every turn.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger New England Water Blog said...
So far LV appears to be a hoax,

POST a statement and the people here might give it a go, there were a couple done already and the conclusion was that they were not telling us the whole story and likely being deceptive.

Hey Jude said...

OT

Transcript 911 call - missing infant Caliyah McNabb


PO: What is the emergency?
CB:I just woke up, my daughter woke me up on the couch, um, I have a two year old and I have a two week old - and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper, and her paci is on the floor
PO: She’s not in her sleeper?
CB: She’s not in her sleeper- sh-she’s not here, i’ve looked everywhere, I’ve looked under clothes and everything
PO: What’s your address, ma’am?
CB:12145 highway 36, lot 31
CB:Yes, lot 31
PO: Do you think somebody took her, ma’am?
CB:My child said - m-m-m-my two year old said she’s gone…a-a-and I’ve looked everywhere in the house, so I - and I don’t know another possibility
PO: What lot number are you at?
CB: 31
PO: Okay. And you said you were asleep, woke up and she was gone?
CB: Yes. Ma-ma-ma two year old came and woke me up
PO: Okay
CB: That’s [inaudible] on the couch.
CB: Caliyah!! [calling loudly to missing baby]
PO: How old is she’ ma’am?
CB: Two weeks old.
PO: Okay. Who else would have come in your house?
CB: I - I mean - as far as I know nobody would’ve came in my house. My two year old says Poppa but I called my dad, and I called my grandparents, and they don’t have her. My dad’s on the way here now.
PO: Okay
[CB shouts something inaudible - a name?]
PO: Alright, how long have you been asleep?
CB: Um, the last time I woke up with her was around - I guess five, maybe
PO: Okay. So you were asleep till five o clock?
CB: [lengthy pause] I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…
PO: Can you tell if someone’s been there - is her blanket there or gone?
CB: Ur - her blanket’s gone, her paci’s here on the floor - her blanket’s not with us, I don’t know where - I mean - I g- I don’t know, I guess it’s with her
PO: Okay.
CB: And I have clothes in totes, but i’ve looked all in ‘em and she’s not here
PO: Is there anything else missing, like a baby bag, that she would have, or anything -
CB: No. Her bottle’s here - on top of my shelf -
PO: Okay, what about
CB: Ah - my roo-In my bathroom on my vanity…
PO: Ma’am.
CB: Huh?
PO: What about anything else that could possibly have gone like, could be hers, that could’ve gone with her?
CB: Um - no. Nothing else. Just her and her blanket
PO: Okay, so the only thing that’s missing is her and her blanket? You didn’t talk to the dad, or her grandma, or anybody else?
CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not
PO: Have you looked through everything, ot under the bed?
CB: Yes ma’am.
PO: The bathroom?
CB: Yes ma’am.
PO: Okay
CB: Caliyah!
PO: Alright, what’s your name, ma’am?
CB: Courtney Bell C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y B-E-L-L
PO: Just to let you know, Courtney, they've been on their way out, I’m just giving them this information to update them, okay?
CB: Thank you so much,
PO: What’s your phone number?
CB: Um, i’m not sure of this number, I - uh, my phone busted the other day, um this is my grandmother’s phone she’s been letting me use
PO: Alright, so you and the dad both were - i’m just trying to get to understand so I can let them know cause of the questions that they’re asking me
PO: You and the dad both were asleep, or he just came back home?
CB: No, w-we woke up together - she woke us up together
PO: Okay. The two year old woke y’all up and told y’all that the baby was gone?
Yeah.
PO: Okay.
CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?
PO: Okay. So the police should be in the area now
CB: Thank you
PO: I’ll go ahead and let you go, okay.
CB: Thanks.
PO: Uh huh


Hey Jude said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZn3_y4lr0


This link is to a better version of the call, in that it can be paused - in case anyone wants to check the transcript.

Hey Jude said...

Someone in the YouTube comments said the mother was calling for the baby as if she were a missing dog - true, that is just how it sounded. The father walking round the park looking for her seems the same sort of thing - perhaps they think she took herself out for a stroll.

Anonymous said...

I think her statement sounds scripted.

John mcgowan said...

Order speak to priority

911: What's your emergency?

Mother: I just woke up..my daughter just woke me up....

She is establishing an alibi before she report her missing this is the first thing on her mind and not her daughter.

Order:

I just woke up
me up on the couch,
um, I have a two year old
and I have a two week old -
and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper


Her two year old comes before her.
What's is intriguing (in priority} is she states the location (couch) before her missing "child".
This is important to her, why?
Is she placing herself in a different place for a reason?
It's entered he language without prompt.

Anonymous said...

A couple of reasons it sounds scripted: He planned "violence". Who would use such a soft word like that in this situation? ...something "horrible" like this... The word "horrible" seems out of place, added for effect.

Hey Jude said...

Re Caliyah - it's strange how the mother seems to be making the two year old the authority in the house.

First she says the two year old woke 'me' up. Later, she says she and the father were both asleep, and the two year old woke them both. 'We woke up together'. Must have been a big couch, or an uncomfortable sleep.

'I loved on her' -that's like saying she's a good mother. Also, stoppimg to 'love on' the two year old would not be a priority if she'd just discovered her two week old baby was missing. She looked everywhere, under clothes, in the totes, in the bathroom - two week olds get everywhere, and they just won't come home or answer when you call out their name.

John mcgowan said...

Baby Caliya OT Update:

Newton County father charged with murder in newborn’s death

A Newton County father has been charged with murder in the death of his 15-day-old daughter, according to police.
Christopher Michael McNabb was charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery and concealing a death, Capt. Keith Crum with the Newton Sheriff’s Office said. McNabb is accused of killing baby Caliyah, then hiding her body in the woods behind the family’s mobile home.

An autopsy determined Caliyah died from blunt force trauma to the head, Newton Coroner Tommy Davis said late Tuesday.

Caliyah’s mother, Cortney Bell, called 911 Saturday morning to report her missing, launching an extensive search of the mobile home community. That night, McNabb pleaded for his daughter to be returned.

On Sunday, searchers found the baby’s body. Before McNabb could be questioned by investigators, he jumped out of a moving vehicle and ran, according to police. He was later found after a convenience store clerk recognized him. Sunday night, McNabb was arrested for an unrelated probation violation from Bartow County.

McNabb is expected to appear in court Thursday. He was being held without bond.

http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/breaking-father-charged-with-murder-newton-county-newborn-death/39muXuhsUPRJTvtKd3HG2I/?ecmp=newspaper_email&

emma h said...

I'm guessing there was domestic violence involved from SP to Marilou (based on her saying she hoped for a 'quiet' life with him) or at least him dominating her - it's hard to know if the statements in the press about him having an underlying mental illness (and Marilou supposedly saying he was screaming in his sleep) are true but the account I do believe is the car salesman (lol) below:

http://radaronline.com/videos/stephen-paddock-depressed-las-vegas-shooting/

Armstrong wrote on his Facebook page. “From the beginning of our interaction, I sensed he was distressed in some way. I’m very intuitive and pretty good at reading people. During the course of our conversation we somehow started talking about relationships and he confided his had just ended and that he was terribly depressed over it.” “I don’t think I’ve seen a man as down as he was. I offered words of encouragement and shared some of my relationship experiences and tried to console him,” he wrote, adding, “I explained things would eventually work out.”

I think this account sounds legitimate but I may be wrong haha. It sounds way more Legitimate than Marilous anyway!!!

I think this is why Marilou is so defensive in her statement -- she knew of his gun room, thought he was breaking up with her when she went on her trip. You don't think someone is breaking up with you if there are not problems - or they have already broken up. I think she is hiding this fact as she blames herself and wants to pretend they were deeply in love etc.

I think this relationship breakdown (with 2 previous failed marriages) plus having no kids - plus psychopathic tendencies/triats inherited from his Dad - plus a shit/meaningless lifestyle - led him to collect so many guns in the last year and go into a downward spiral of resentment. It's easy for anyone to do - so I get the spiral downwards - wanting to destroy everything etc. Being depressed, those dark thoughts would take him over.

The fact he killed people at such a distance (not up close) shows how disconnected he was from others.

Maybe Marilou was clueless about mental illness etc so she didn't know what to do - she felt helpless - or he wouldn't see a health care professional etc. There's no way she didn't know of his increased purchase of guns - anyone would worry someone with depression could use them. I think she she's guilty knowledge in her statement - otherwise she would blame herself in some way, like 'If I only got him some medical help' etc

Eva said...

Just checking if able to comment. Im new