Thursday, January 4, 2018

Father Speaks Out About Death of Daughter

When someone speaks publicly, there is the response of the public.  They will choose to believe or question the speaker.  This is true for anyone at anytime. 

Here, a man recounts the heart wrenching account of the death of his daughter, for the first time for media.  

Listen very carefully to his statement.  

What do you notice about his account of what happened to his daughter?

It can be helpful to listen to the audio and not the body language/face expressions.  

Note the body of the statement. 

Note the influence of the Interviewer. 

Note the length of time between her death and the statement. 

Note linguistic commitment, including pronouns and verb tense. 

Note repetition. 

Note element within a sentence. 

Note priorities.  

You are seeking to learn if:

1.  The subject reliably reports on the death of his daughter, or

2.  There is significantly withheld information. 

The video does not embed:  

Go to:  LINK 

Your thoughts on veracity or missing information should be from specific points.  

Are you able to draw a conclusion?  Is the sample enough?

If someone transcribes, please send to hyattanalysis@gmail.com





79 comments:

Peter Hyatt said...

this is likely to produce some interesting comments.

The public was overwhelmingly supportive, which sometimes translates to emotional commenting, including some angry for just posting.

Peter

Lucia D said...

What a sad interview. I believe this Dad. His pronouns and past tense telling of the story seemed reliable to me. The only time he slipped into present tense was talking about his little girl "she takes a drum ..." But that struck me as the natural denial of a parent who hasn't fully processed the death of his child yet. I had a hard time catching some of the words, but my impression was this interview took place mere days after the events?

He did spend a lot of time defending how obedient his dog is, but again it struck me as the guilt any parent would probably be feeling in the situation (what if I hadn't brought the dog along with us, could I have saved her?). That poor couple.

Anonymous said...

OT: The husband of the family that was allegedly held hostage by the taliban is in some trouble. Pay particular interest to the comments from the defense attorney. He first says his client is innocent and then says the trauma he endured is to blame. How can here be something to blame him for if he's innocent? https://www.dailywire.com/news/25342/former-taliban-hostage-joshua-boyle-arrested-emily-zanotti?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

TheSkeptic

Anonymous said...

I havent been able to read the whole thing bc an ad saying I won an iphone keeps popping up.

I dont know if I believe them or not, but the Dad seems to be very self-focused & uses a lot of "violent" words to describe his suffering & grief which is strange within the context of the daughter having been crushed by a wall.
In the part I was able to read, I noticed

"I would have HIT the Jack Daniels and pills"
"has me in a CHOKEHOLD"
"legs went AND I COULDNT MOVE"

Water is mentioned by the mother.

They say they feel guilty for being "happy"?!

They say they havent dusted atound the fireplace bc her FINGERPRINTS are there, yet they casually stumble upon concrete items like hairbows in drawers that belonged to the baby.

I dont know. I will read the rest later on my computer.

Anonymous said...

Are we supposed to look at the writen part or the video. I read part of the written part but did not watch video.

Anonymous said...

I listened to the video without watching it by putting the phone to my ear.
I will write more later, but I hear withheld information in the beginning of interview with the "I never (isually did this)" "I never (isually did that"". He is withholding info on why he was home & why he took her to the park.
I think something happened regarding the stairs...it is sensitive that he is saying that the daughter would usually sit on the first step and beat the drum & whst if he had allowed to climb just one more step. Would that have altered the trajectory of events?

Then he says at the end "Thats all I can say" without actually describing what happened regarding "the wall". He leaves the listener to "fill in the blanks" (ie the wall crushed her but if he doesnt say it, we cant say it for him.

Anonymous said...

Oh also, and this may mean nothing, but when the father was talking about how the daughter would always sit on the FIRST STAIR and beat the drum, it reminded me immediately of an actually well-known detail (because I think it is actually written on the back cover in the summary of the book) of Frank McCourt's novel "Angela's Ashes" how the drunken Dad was a good story-teller & would tell the kids a story about how "the angel of the SEVENTH STAIR" brought new babies to the family (when they were born). I dont know why, but I immediately thought of that.

Anonymous said...

sorry, it should say "angel ON the SEVENTH STAIR"

Anonymous said...

May 25, 1999 · The Paperback of the Angela's Ashes: A Memoir by Frank McCourt at ... and of the Angel on the Seventh Step, who brings his mother babies.

Anonymous said...

III. Family Life. Angela gives birth to a baby, Michael, whom Frank's father says was left by an angel on their seventh stair. Frank names this the "Angel on the Seventh Step," and annoys his father by asking lots of questions on ...

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:12 PM said:
I hear withheld information in the beginning of interview with the "I never (isually did this)" "I never (isually did that"". He is withholding info on why he was home & why he took her to the park.

I agree. He spends what seems to me like an inordinate amount of effort to state the uniqueness of what he is doing with Pearl. Lots of "never", "unusual", "usually don't", etc. He's told us what it isn't, but not what it is. He seems surprised that they are doing this apparently very rare and unusual thing. If there's something unique and unexpected about his being home, or his engaging with Pearl in this "daddy of the year" kind of way, it isn't stated.

Their grief certainly seems authentic. Although, when viewed through the statements that were printed in the article about feeling guilty about laughing, or "Forgetting" about Pearl for a while, or focusing on their surviving son, I'm not sure what to make of that.

He also seems to make a contradictory statement involving the wall and his contact with Pearl. First he states that when the vehicle hit the wall, he wasn't quick enough to pull Pearl towards the street and the wall fell on her. He later indicates she "died in his arms". I may have missed it, but I didn't hear where he stated he removed her from under the wall, or otherwise dug her out from under it, and held her. I don't believe he explained how she went from under the wall to his arms, where she died. It is certainly reasonable that if this happened as he described then he would have tried to get Pearl out from under the wall, but he doesn't actually say that's what he does. Again, if he did discuss it and I just missed it, then that's my oversight. There's a section where he and his wife are both talking over one another and it was hard to understand.

Nic said...

This is the most heartbreaking interview I've ever listened to. It was very hard to watch. Blessings and strength to this family.

Where the father begins is important. By the sounds of it, everything about that day is a-typical. From beginning of it when Pearl articulated for the very first time what she wanted to do, to when the wall fell on Pearl. IMO, it's like he's replayed everything about that day up to when the wall "snatched" Pearl. He still sees it happening. You can practically see Ace being thrown from harms way. He's been thinking, if one thing about that day had of been different, then the outcome would have been different and his little girl would still be alive. Everything he's gone back on, including their routine (Pearl would have been having dinner with her maternal (?) grandparents) was different.

This man is harbouring a lot of blame. I'm heartened to hear that they are in grief counselling.

This statement really tugs at my heart. What is stated in the negative is very sensitive. He cannot "wipe" what is left of Pearl from their lives. It's all they have left of her.

"“We can’t clean the windows and the bottom of the TV and the fire or everything she could reach because it’s still got her little fingerprints on it,” said Paul. “I can’t wipe them away because they’re her fingerprints.”

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:32,

Interesting observatiins. I agree that something is quire strange about him emphasizing how unique & special going to the park was. One thing that jumped out at me was his statement that he was "over the moon" that Pearl had done something that she had never done before which was say "Daddy swing" (she wanted him to take her to the park). Is it possible he wasnt really "over the moon"? Maybe he was actually pissed because he would have normally been at band practice (probably drinking/smoking pot, etc? Insread he was "over the moon" about doing a mundane activity (going to the park?) Maybe the wife said "You never spend time with her on the weekend bc youre always at band practice & he convinced him to take her but he was pissed.
I will listen to video again.

Anonymous said...

"(Pearl) burst in through the DOOR".

Door reference within the first 30 sec. of video.

Nic said...

I did pick up on some sensitivity around the company he was acting with. He left rehearsal early because he was 'off book' (knew his lines). Not only that, he said he knew the other actors' lines as well and he said he was "done" and that (paraphrasing because I can't understand what he said,) that he couldn't do anymore, hence the reason the writer/producer let him go early. He was very clear about persuading the writer/producer to let him go. He persuades us at the end of this part of the story/day that they are a "good" company so as to not to disparage them. But I sense that he has thought about if they had known their lines, then he would not have been let go early and Pearl would be alive. Lots of "what if's" and obvious regret.

It's easy to see that Pearl articulating a "simple" wish for the first time, was what was motivating him to get off work early and be with her. IMO he is an indulging and present father. He's also a good husband. When his wife breaks down, he puts his arm around her to comfort her and he kisses her.

Anonymous said...

If Pearl had just started walking, kids that age would not just stride beside their Dad on a walk to the park. They want to either be carried or pished in a stroller. Odd he had no stroller especially since he also had a dog with him.

Anonymous said...

Big deal if he "comforts her"!

He had a little tiny girl walking along in the road & lets her get crushed by a wall?! If that was my husband he would never touch me again & hed be sleeping in a friggin tent.

Anonymous said...

He threw the dog Ace out of the way but not Pearl?

Anonymous said...

Im just now watching the last 5 min of video cause I didnt hear it before.
The Mom is genuine. The Dad is fake. My ex had some of the same fakeass body language when he was FAKING REMORSE AND LYING. LIKE THE "LOWERED HEAD": THAT IS FAKE!!!

Anonymous said...

These are quotes Im pullimg out if interview

"(Pearl) burst through the DOOR".

"Its so UNUSUAL. She SHOULDNT have been here."

Anonymous said...

I just finished reading the article and I think that is so strange how the Dad says that he was never so proud of Pearl as he was on the day of the funeral, because it was a different girl in the coffin that the girl he took to the park that day, because that girl had flown to heaven (paraphrased).

I also thinks it's weird that they made a production out of the funeral almost like it was a wedding with the horse drawn carriage (?)

My final conclusion is that: The Dad is withholding info about something that happened in the morning when Pearl "burst in through the door". Why does he tell us what the Mom was doing as they were "in the process of waking up" when Pearl "burst in through the door". He is withholding WHAT HE HIMSELF WAS DOING AT THAT TIME. I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "door" entering the interview within the first 30 seconds. Something is being kept secretive about what occurred that morning as the family was "in the process of waking up". That is the time period where the info is being withheld.

Anonymous said...

Did Pearl "burst in through the door" and see something she wasn't supposed to see?

Anonymous said...

He is also concealing WHY they were "up early".

I am convinced he is concealing info at the beginning of the video. Something happened in the home that morning. Something was going on that was not good--hence the , "Pearl burst through the door"...drug use or worse???

Anonymous said...

I have a question:

When they were in the "process of getting up" "early" and the Mom was either "feeding or changing Ace", where was Pearl before she "burst through the door"? Would not the Mom be feeding her with Ace or helping her get changed?
The narrative has Pearl's feeding or changing needs not being attended to, she simply comes out of nowhere and "bursts through the door" saying "Daddy swing" "Daddy park", and supposedly Pearl "wasn't even supposed to be there"?!

Something VERY messed up was going on regarding the Dad and Pearl before Pearl "burst through the door".

Lucia D said...

Nic I agree with you, I believe he he was a good father and husband. His words did not tell me otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why they go on and on about the hospital being so wonderful and keeping them overnight and being so wonderful and cordoning them off.

Usually when there is an emergency situation going on involving a child and the hospital people don't really give much of a crap about how nice the hospital people are.
Like my son was born very early, and when I tell people about it, and it is somewhat dramatic, I sometimes feel bad because I realize I don't ever (well, rarely) praise the hospital or the great things they did--it was a life or death situation so the focus stays on my son and them trying to stop labor, doing emergency c-section, rushing my son up to NICU, and yes they did some wonderful things like the nurse who monitored my son's movements in utero the entire night, and many other great things, but you don't usually mention it much when you are telling the story of a life or death situation.

Lucia D said...

Peter please share your analysis!

Anonymous said...

Why was the Mom buying bedding when Pearl was being crushed by the wall? She just decided "oh gee, husband and kids are going to the park...great day to buy bedding!"

They are hiding a lot.

Anonymous said...

The Mom says that buying bedding was "such a mundane thing to do".

Was it?

Was it just like doing the dishes or feeding the cat?

Anonymous said...

Why did she need to buy new bedding? New bedding is expensive. What was on the bedding?

Anonymous said...

We have "door" within the first 30 sec. and we have "new bedding" and we have a deceased child. This interview is making me sick.

Anonymous said...

Why does the Dad say that noone was in the vehicle that was going at a certain rate?

Anonymous said...

I feel the father was under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Had he been sober, he may have realized the danger coming in their direction.

He over emphasizes how unusual that day was (burst through the door) probably meaning pearl burst in the door as he was doing drugs. and surprised him.

Anonymous said...

Also I find it odd that there is no mention of who was driving that vehicule that slammed into the wall.

Why would they not mention the driver and why the accident happened in the first place?

Did the father some how cause that car have an accident? Did his unleashed dog run out in the street and the car veer away to avoid it, thus crashing into the wall?

Anonymous said...

I say this hesitantly, but I am not convinced that Pearl was a living breathing person that morning.
The only thing we have indicating she was alive is that she "burst through the door" which a 18 month old child cannot do, as well as she allegedly said "Daddy swing" "Daddy park" which she "had never done before". There are no other indicators such as "I got her ready" "I put on her little jacket" "I came home from rehearsal and she was smiling and I picked her up". There is a scarcity of info indicating her actual living presence.

At the grandmother's we have "she usually sat on the first step and tapped a drum". We have she "was a little dot" walking along beside him, which again, a child that age is NOT going to stride beside their parent and walk to the park. They always want to be pushed in a stroller or held.

The actions they are presenting that Pearl allegedly did that would indicate her living breathing presence are actions a child that age cannot or will not do. There is a scarcity of info indicating actual interaction with a living breathing child or behavioral or verbal details coming from the child. We have the verbal "Daddy swing" "Daddy park", however, the condition that she "had never said that" and "I was delighted, over the moon" make it sensitive as to whether she actually said "Daddy swing, Daddy park".

Was she even alive that morning when they were "in the process of getting up"?

Anonymous said...

10:01, that is possible about her bursting in on the drug use.

10:05, I cannot answer that because something is very messed up about his description of the oncoming vehicle and alleged wall crash. Basically he does not describe it, and he indicates that "there was noone there" (in the vehicle that was going at a certain rate).

There is something very dark going on here in this story.

Anonymous said...

I fail to understand why this post is relevant since it is in Wales and concerns a tattoo artist whose baby's funeral has catapulted him to rock-star like status among his peers in the tiny town in which he and his wife reside.

I believe the article that the death was an accident. Why the conspiracy theories over something so traumatic? The author clearly has nothing to do but record every word uttered by either parent.

This is bs.

Anonymous said...

More like the story is BS, anon.

I'm trapped inside in a friggin blizzard. If I choose to complete Peter's assignment, that's none of your business.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, totally normal for a Dad to carry his daughter's casket and say that he had "never been more proud of her".

THAT's bullshit!

Anonymous said...

Why the need to buy new bedding?

The only time I have run out to buy new bedding is when my son had severe diarhea when he was little. Its not something people just decide to do on a whim...oh gee, today would be a good day to buy new bedding.

Anonymous said...

Good luck with the case. I'm out.

General P. Malaise said...

I went through it quickly and on form it is not reliable.

roughly 40% intro 13% event and 46% post. a reliable statement one expects 25% intro 50% event and 25% post.

there may be several reasons for this form to be out of whack.
1) There are 2 people talking although the father does almost all the talking up to and including the event.
2) we don't know what the interviewer has asked although the initial question appears to be a good one, describe what happened that day.
3)where I pick the start of pre/event/post may differ with other people, still the ratio will not alter enough to get it close to the expected or desired reliable format.

a)It takes a long time for the father to get to the event. (that's bad)

b)The father doesn't use her name until at the rehearsal and once just before event. (that's not good)

c)the father talks more highly of the dog than either child (that's not good)

d)the fathers linguistic disposition to the child isn't positive and it is slightly negative (that's not good)

e)they both praise the hospital even though they could not help the child. (not great)

f)there are a lot of seemingly unnecessary sentences and descriptions of things but with the event no details. (that's bad)

g)linguistically neutral towards the wall and the vehicle. (that's bad or at least unexpected)

h)father shifts blame to fate. a way of avoiding responsibility. (yeah that isn't good)

f)father laughs when mentioning Pearl heeling like the dog. (that's not good)

g)the father speaks of himself and she (not Pearl but "she")is a prop for him, is about them and not Pearl (not good)

h) passive language particularly during the event (not good)

i)pronouns (stuttering) repeated often (not good)

j)time jumps indicating missing information. (not good)

k) the child is not the priority of the narrative, it is about them the parents (not good)

To answer Peter's questions:

1) the father does not tell us reliably what happened.
2) there is indication of withheld information.

Anonymous said...

Gen Malaise, You did a great job breaking all that down!

I agree--way too much info in the beginning & hardly any about the event itself.
That is so odd how he laughs about Pearl "heeling" especially since its seconds away from her dying (allegedly--since I believe she was already dead prior to the "walk".

Anonymous said...

That is so fake how he kisses her on the cheek like "this will make it all better if I give you a kissy on the cheek". It reminds me of my ex. It used to make me want to vomit when he would do things like kiss my forehead or give me Eskimo kisses--it used to make me squirm in my own flesh & want to vomit at the faux "gentleness". I see that same thing in that creepy Dad in video.

Ingie said...

He says she came bursting through the door...not sure if is this is similar to opening a door which in an open statement is psychologically linked to sexual abuse (does not mean he abused her)....He portrays himself as a good father throughout the statement...I also think he subtly blames Pearl...... he only mentions her name twice...he feels the need to explain why they were up early...he gives unnecessary information about rehearsals...he talks about rehearsals a lot..he mentions the writer of the play Anthony Bunko before mentioning Pearl's name.He gives him a full social introduction: Anthony Bunko, the writer of the play. He talks about how great the company is and how much fun they have... 'I wanted to go to the park with her' He is distancing himself from her using the word with. He mentions time a lot which makes the timeline sensitive..he feels the need to explain why he walked them to the park...he states what he says a lot more than report what happened...he uses the word children instead of kids....he blames the wall not the faulty brakes....the trucks changed to this vehicle which is appropriate, because there is a change in his reality. He says 'the wall took her from me. I can't say anymore'. He is censoring himself... I would expect anger towards the faulty brakes...he mentions Gem's name first, then Ace, then Anthony Bunko, then Pearl, then Rolla. He gives a full social introduction to Rolla.. he says Rolla, my boxer dog. I expected more talking about Pearl and less unnecessary information about himself... He talks about Pearl in the present tense at times which means there is parental denial. He is not reporting reliably. There is missing information.

TimA said...

He says that his dog "Roller" was not on a leash and that there was no gate on the end of the drive. He says he threw his infant son "Ace" out of the way and was trying to grab his toddler daughter "Pearl" by the back of her clothing but wasn't in time. He also says she died in his arms. That he had to pull her from the rubble, and that she died instantly. And that the wall took her from him. It's inconsistent, did she die instantly under the wall, or did she die afterwards in his arms?

His statement is about %40 prologue, %10 event, %50 post. It's been about 5 months, and I'm sure the interviewer was happy for them to talk in length. He kept switching from current tense to past tense, he repeated that she never would ask him to go to the park, but then said she asked him to go to the park. He discusses three parks but doesn't say which he was heading to. Which parks would have swings? There seems to be a bit of story-telling to cast himself in a better light. Visiting the park may have been his idea, his dog was running loose, he wasn't injured, his son wasn't injured, so it's unlikely he was grabbing for his daughter as the collision happened, even though that's what he told his wife.

Anonymous said...

.....and the Blackburn discussion is shut down?

I can see why. As time has passed, it’s screamingly obvious how wrong the statement analysis was.

Is it to avoid further embarrassment, or is it to avoid some sort of jegal ramifications?

Anonymous said...

*legal

Anonymous said...

- by Willow -

Adding some random points of evidence of withheld information.

1. Pearl Black died 6. of August 2017. Why the lengthy distance in time?
2. There is a possibility of preparation of a script to hide parental or other involvement. If an accident took place, why don't the parents say it openly? .

3. This alerts me both of the two times listening to the video. Is an 18 mth old able to say "swing", "Daddy swing"? I'm not native in English.
4. Mother, Gemma, says at 3:30 on the video that "Pearl was late to walk. She didn't walk until she was 17 months".
Pearl died at 18 months. She had only been able to train walking a few weeks before the walk at his father's "heel" towards the perilous garden wall.

5. Paul believes in giving commands to an 18 mths old. At his mother, he ordered Pearl not to go higher the stairs. He also told the daughter to walk by his "knee". A child that young cannot be a recipient of orders so that a parent removes any responsibility of the child's safety to her shoulders.
6. A sign of parentification of Pearl is father saying that he has never been more proud of Pearl than now when she is dead.
The child's duty is to make father proud which she was best able to accomplish by dying.

7. Paul says of the Range Rover coming at them: ..."Obviously I can't say on camera what I shouted". This is true.
Paul may not have shouted/been to his mother/gone to park with the company/ at all. Where are the eyewitnesses?
From additional links we read the parents continue ingratiating themselves to good graces in every direction.
They thank the authorities of the community "of taking us under their wings".

8. Can anyone here find info of the Range Rover driver Andrew Williams? Is there an interview?
Was the vehicle "unattended and rolling towards the wall" that according to photo seems to be hardly a wall at all, only a weak, low and thin molding surrounfing a patch of lawn.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/criminal-charges-pearl-black-considered-13714918

9. There were three persons at the accident + a dog. The only person unaffected was the Dad.
10. How could the wall "snatch" a toddler?
The wall "snatched and took"... "away from me". This is one parent's interpretation in action. In his mind he makes the wall a living entity that has its own will.

Paul portrays himself as a victim of the vicious wall. He expresses empathy towards himself and not towards the deceased daughter, Pearl.

12. Gemma says: "I was at the retail buying bedding."
She adds: "Such an insignificant thing". Her mentioning buying the bedding at the retail store is significant as the purchase and its timing was bound to raise questions. It could not be hidden.

13. Paul Black makes effort to portray the theater company and his work-mates there respectable.
A "rule of 180 degrees" encourages us to look for the very opposite of sensitive wordings. Is irrespectability somehow a meaningful aspect present in the lives of the speaker.

Anonymous said...

I find the below two quotes from the article interesting:

“We have to change focus for him, but the guilt you feel for feeling good is awful.

“I’ve had people helping me refurbish the shop and I’ve laughed quite a bit, but I knew I was going to come down with a crash. That happens every day – the guilt I felt for forgetting her for one second.”

Could this be an embedded admission, "The guilt I felt for forgetting her for one second?"

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
- by Willow -

there is an article that said the owner of the vehicle was a lorry driver. the inquest said the vehicle was unlocked set in park and the handbrake full applied. the coroner stated he could not determine cause of death.

the last part and the parents being isolated in the hospital may indicate the police want to keep them away from everyone for other than privacy concerns.

General P. Malaise said...

I agree that the "bursting in through the door .." is a serious clue to what occurred.

that above, the dog and the stairs stand out as points of interest that need further examination.

all three instances are unnecessary parts of the narrative. this makes them important to the context of the death.

as far as I can recall and then she came ….. again burst in through the door, daddy swings and daddy park, so she daddy swings and daddy park. I was delighted because she never asked me to do that.

1) "as far as I can recall .." this indicates sensitivity to the time in question. it allows one to withhold information not much different than saying "I don't remember".

2)"then she came ..." here the subject stops and self censors. he stops himself from saying something or stops because he needs time to think it through, either indicate sensitivity and possible deception.

3) "again burst in through the door .." these are the words he chose to describe how a toddler, apparently unsteady on her feet entered the space he was in. this is unexpected. "burst" denotes a violent entry.

4) "again burst in through the door .." the word "again" indicates she had burst in through the door earlier. What information is missing or withheld here?

5) "daddy swings and daddy park, so she daddy swings and daddy park." a strange sentence. if she said that and repeated it then we can say it is an appropriate utterance of an under 2 year old. it is what follows the draws my interest.

6) "I was delighted because she never asked me to do that." here the subject tells us she "never asked me to do that." and he is delighted. He tells us in the negative what she never asked.

LisaB said...

Is Ace a dog? Or a child?

When they were in the "process of getting up" "early" and the Mom was either "feeding or changing Ace", where was Pearl before she "burst through the door"? Would not the Mom be feeding her with Ace or helping her get changed?

Buckley said...

It may have been a different interview, but in one he uses the word "chokehold" to describe how he feels about her death.

Buckley said...

His placing her in the street and knowing she was already dead is sensitive. Is it a need to explain why (I assume) she was moved from the scene of the accident?

LisaB said...

From other comments:

He gives a full social introduction to Rolla.. he says Rolla, my boxer dog.

He says that his dog "Roller" was not on a leash and that there was no gate on the end of the drive. He says he threw his infant son "Ace" out of the way and was trying to grab his toddler daughter "Pearl" by the back of her clothing but wasn't in time.

General P. Malaise said...

She died in my arms, she died instantly from the incident that I had to drag her from. She was gone in my arms and I had to put her on the floor.

1) "She died in my arms, she died instantly.." if taken literally then he was holding her in his arms when she died instantly.

2) "she died instantly from the incident that I had to drag her from." unexpected passive voice. "the incident". "that I had to drag her from" had the dog gotten her? was the dog dragging her?



3) "She was gone in my arms and I had to put her on the floor." he has accepted her being dead immediately and no hope for rescue. Parents hold out hope even when it is unreasonable.

4) "I had to put her on the floor" Maybe I am wrong, do people speak like that in this part of the world? he was on the street I would expect him to say I put her on the ground not the "floor". Did the dog "burst" in through the door dragging the child (in the home) did the dog "snatch" the child? Did he put her on the "floor" in his home?

LisaB said...

From your link:

"At an earlier hearing the court heard the automatic transmission of the Range Rover, which was stationary on a driveway, was believed to be in park at the time, with the handbrake fully applied."

This wording is unclear. Do they mean to say that the investigation indicated that the vehicle was parked/braked? Or that the person who left the car in the driveway unattended only BELIEVED that the vehicle was properly parked/braked, but that the investigation showed differently?

(Rhetorical question)

Hey Jude said...

Gen P - You'd need more instances of when he uses 'floor', for comparison- some people say 'floor' for ground, and 'roof' for 'ceiling'.

I'd question if really he was walking to a park with two babies yet without a stroller/pushchair - even if a new walking toddler could walk to the park, without needing some carrying, how was he going to put Pearl into a swing, and push her, and then lift her out from the swing, when he had also the little baby in his arms?

LisaB said...

The article (as I mentioned above) is "unreliable" in regard to the vehicle being properly parked:

"At an earlier hearing the court heard the automatic transmission of the Range Rover, which was stationary on a driveway, was believed to be in park at the time, with the handbrake fully applied."

They do not actually say it was properly secured, only that someone (unclear if this means owner/operator at the time s/he parked it, or investigative results after the incident) BELIEVED it to be.

Without knowing for sure what thus means, it is harder to know if the owner is blameless.

I'd like to see the coroner's report with regard to TIME of death, if cause can not be determined, and perhaps an indication of what "could not determine" means. Certainly many things can be ruled out... shooting, strangulation, tiger attack... but what remains?

Toxicology?
Did she ingest something accidentally that should not have been in reach, or even in the home, "requiring" a coverup?

Blunt force trauma?
Seems this would be the obvious COD, as the wall fell on her. Does the coroner mean there were older (but still fresh) blunt force injuries that COULD have been the cause of death?

Spinal Injuries?
Could the cause be something, like a spinal cord injury, that can be a known injury with undetermined cause? For instance, a fall down stairs, shaken child, wall collapse, or injuries sustained when her dad tried to pull her from beneath the wall.

Snowed in here, and over thinking this. :)

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger LisaB said...
The article (as I mentioned above) is "unreliable" in regard to the vehicle being properly parked:

"At an earlier hearing the court heard the automatic transmission of the Range Rover, which was stationary on a driveway, was believed to be in park at the time, with the handbrake fully applied."


the articles I have read (there are many inconsistencies) but they all say the same regarding the vehicle being unlocked/in park/ and handbrake full applied. This is from the inquest. The articles don't give us the pertinent information. One said the investigation was working on if the vehicle could move if on a slope under those conditions but did not indicate the results of said tests.

If it could not move then the vehicle would need to be put in park and handbrake applied after it crashed. i.e. staged.

I looked for images of the wall or the vehicle in relation to the wall but there are no pictures of the scene that come up in my searches.

Anonymous said...

All most on here look for is someone to blame.
It's evident they already blame themselves plenty, but are grateful for a loving community that surrounded them and lifted them up in their hour of need.

Small towns are different from larger cities as the people are allowed to be themselves and not what the group allows them to be.

He auditioned on The Voice and no one turned around for him though he was very good. Show tunes weren't their thing.

someone is trying to force them into the reality show type life though that wasn't what was in store for them.

Anonymous said...

- by Willow -

Evidence supporting the working hypothesis of a fatal accident taking place with the boxer (or other similar incident of sudden violence where particularly Paul was involved) is definitely where Gen.P.M. is suggesting, "the floor", "bursting in the door", "snatch", she dying instantly, she "gone in my arms", dying from "the incident" that Paul had to "drag her from" ...

Pearl clearly wobbled walking, which was a relatively new phenomenon in the family. A toddler at this stage becomes unpredictable. Prone to hurting herself.
She was potentially in danger in the streets and at home in a whole new way.

The dog may have been alerted and alarmed this Sunday or the previous Saturday.

It is truly difficult to see what is missing in a narrative.
There is not a word of the family-dog on the video, which is sensitive. Nor any sounds of movement, barking etc.
There have elapsed 5 months from 6.8., the death of Pearl. I wonder if the Blacks still have the boxer.

Nic said...

LisaB said...
Is Ace a dog? Or a child?

When they were in the "process of getting up" "early" and the Mom was either "feeding or changing Ace", where was Pearl before she "burst through the door"? Would not the Mom be feeding her with Ace or helping her get changed?


I gather from the report/pictures, their children are close together. Even still, their nutritional/general needs would be very different. It is not unreasonable to *assume* that Pearl was settled apart from her mom and baby brother, i.e., with a snack in front of the TV watching her favourite show, while mom was tending to baby Ace. It would not be unreasonable to *assume* that one parent got up early while the other parent slept in a bit. Especially if he was a musician and he had been up late the night before. I don't know if this was the case, I'm just speaking from the vantage point of raising two kids 13 months apart and whose husband is a small business owner/he works long hours.

Personally, I think he was giving his wife a break -- why he wasn't as prepared for the park as some here think he could have been could be based on the fact that taking the kids to the park, just him alone, was out of the ordinary. I would wager a guess that his "job" was tending to the dogs, and she tended to the children. I have no idea of the geographical layout, but walking to a park nearby with a toddler is not much of a leap. Where he started his story is important. How that came about, i.e., an argument, will never be publicly known.

jmo

Anonymous said...

- by Willow -

@ Gen.P.Malaise

The link that i posted today earlier contains a picture with a bed of flowers by very small remains of a kind of fence made of white plaster, painted black from the side of the street. You don't notice it since it's so small. The flowers brought to the site cover what is broken of the fence-ette almost totally.

I may be wrong but I assume this is the site of the accident since the flowers are here and there is the broken piece left of what Paul calls the wall.

I was expecting something more substantial as the remains of the collision.

As you open the link:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/criminal-charges-pearl-black-considered-13714918

...please scroll a bit, it's the second photo downwards with a subtext:

Flowers left on Heolgerrig in Methyr Tydfil in memory of Pearl Melody Black.

They make a point of not calling this place the site of the accident. I wonder why there's room left to confusion also here.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I fail to understand why this post is relevant since it is in Wales and concerns a tattoo artist whose baby's funeral has catapulted him to rock-star like status among his peers in the tiny town in which he and his wife reside.

I believe the article that the death was an accident. Why the conspiracy theories over something so traumatic? The author clearly has nothing to do but record every word uttered by either parent.

This is bs.
January 4, 2018 at 10:10 PM



1. Why read here?
2. Why the need to call it "bs" for one to have an opinion whether or not the subject is truthful or not?
3. Something so irrelevant yet produced a need in you to censor others?

For some, the death of a child is worthy of investigation. For you, the
"nothing to see here, move on" message draws more attention to the case.


For those wondering how MSM so easily manipulates people, look no further than anonymous poster. The poster "knows" it is truthful, and "knows" that others are "bs."

Yet, nothing is posted to even affirm veracity.

This is what turning the brain off looks like and why MSM is so effective, today.



Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Transcripts to be posted soon.

Anonymous said...

- by Willow -

The photo with the mourners' flowers is taken so that it's not easy to evaluate the thickness or strength of the fence made from gypsum-like white material.

And, that is why it's also difficult to evaluate, at a glance, the veracity of the perilous collision with Range Rover and fence.

As it happens, this is the part of the whole narrative that we are given the least amount of information.

It's possible to make guesses though.
Many countries have regulations of how high a built fence of light stone material in a place like that is allowed to be.
I would guess it might be in a Wales suburb around 1,5 - 2 meters.

P.S. Hi, LisaB :) It's raining cats and dogs here, overthinking, too...

TooManyWaWa's said...

The driver of the car isn't mentioned as there was no driver ; the vehicle ( Land Rover, I think?) had been parked , on a drive , on a hill and the handbrake failed. This allowed the vehicle to pick up speed down the hill and hit a wall that fell onto the little girl and crushed her...
The reason the interview seems unreliable on form is that the father is still so traumatised by the event that hes unwittingly stalling to avoid getting to the most painful part of the story... Every detail of the day is so prominent in his mind as he feels that if any moment could be changed , the terrible accident may not have happened as Pearl wouldn't have been in that place at that time...Two months ago , we suffered the tragic death of a family member in a car crash and we're still going through the ' what if' stage , just trying to make sense of such a terrible random event ; it's an incredibly painful experience ... my heart goes out to this couple.

Anonymous said...

This post and the accompanying comments grounded in sound statement analysis principles serve to demonstrate that differences in culture, community and background have no bearing on the usefulness of properly applied technique. The use of video, photographs and comments by knowledgeable sources are entertaining and help the curious to develop a context for understanding a reported event. Ancillary information, however, is excluded from genuine SA and serves as a hindrance to the verbal focus that is required in SA.
A cursory examination of Mr. Black's comments (viewed though an elementary lens of SA) demands that the analyst move into a detailed and careful analysis of Mr. Black's remarks. Mr. Black's language makes him suspect: it is convoluted, stilted, hesitant, redundant, self centered and lacks the expected emotional content used by grieving parents whose children have died under completely accidental circumstances. A close look at the transcript of Mr. Black's will be interesting. In the video we do not hear the interviewer's questions, nor do we know if the was continuous or took place over one or more sessions. When the transcript is published, it will be fascination to see if Mr. Black's stage training and acting background reveal themselves as obviously as they do in the video. He freely speaks of his theatrical ability, how much of the text concerns this aspect of his lifestyle. His flare for the dramatic is clear in the photos, and video. His stagecraft is practiced and professional.
Peter, thank you for all of your hard work and dedication to your profession. You are a gifted and devoted teacher. Your generosity in sharing your knowledge is a true blessing to those of us who believe that truth is universal and that the unflinching insistence on it is a valuable contribution to the well being of all mankind. With kind Regards, Amy Newton

Anonymous said...

I think Pearl died at home. Possibly as a result of falling down the stairs. Did the father not realise she was at home and fail to notice her,leading to an accident. Why all the talk of "normally she wouldn't have been there.."? A child stair gate was probably not installed. "Mum does not have a gate".
The father says "There was a crash scene ". He is acting out a crash scene. I think Pearl was already dead and the crash scene was staged to hide her injuries. Or is something more sinister going on? Why does the father say "Pearl in the raw"? In the raw means naked.There is repetition used describing her clothes. Clothes and costumes of children at Tesco are also mentioned. "By my knees." "Bent down ". The repetition of "tight tight tight ". The door opening. The purchase of bedding. What does this all mean?

Anonymous said...

Ive processed this case in my mind overnight & I believe Pearl was sexually abused on the bedding, and that is why it had to be replaced in order to hide evidence.
She was probably suffocated with a pillow & that is why no cause of death can be determined. Pearl was not alive that morning as there is an abscence of linguitic indicators which would point to her living breathing presence.
The father making a show out of carrying her coffin and saying that he had never been so proud of her as he was that day bc she was no longer the same girl and that that other girl had flown to heaven indicates extremely warped thinking which matches quite well with a molester mindset. If he is proud of her for being dead, Im sure he would feel proud of raping or molesting her. He is a monster.

Anonymous said...

I dont think the point is to show a conspiracy of some sort. Its listening and understanding human words and behaviors, even when its innocence. I am transcribing it now.

Lucia D said...

That is an interesting point about why his intro to the story is so much longer than the actual event!

Jeannine520 said...

I agree with TooManyWaW's comment. My family lost a teen in an accident this summer and in Paul's statement I can see every one of us. Every detail in the days leading up to the accident is burned into our memory, even those of us who were not present, and we feel guilty for every meal we ate, every phone call we made, the length of the phone call, every errand we went on, etc. as if only if we had changed a single detail then the accident would not have happened. Days after the accident when I had to inform other family members who are more distant of what happened I know after hearing Paul's interview that I did the same thing as he did, I started my telling of it way before the event. I was not present at the scene of the accident, there wasn't anything I was concealing. I think the opposite is true. I hold guilt about it so anything and everything leading up to the event is important to me in order to explain **what went wrong**. Watching Paul's interview was excruciating for me. I had to stop it 3 times and come back an hour later to try and finish it. I so identify that it was like a knife in my stomach.

mom2many said...

I also agree with TooManyWaWa's comment. I understand that the statement fails on form, however it appeared that the father was dreading coming to the point, just as he cannot wipe away Pearl's fingerprints. Every word focused on the living part of the statement extends the living Pearl.

The comments about feeling guilty for laughing and living again are quite common among those who are grieving.

General P. Malaise said...

thanks for the link Willow

Anonymous said...

“Processed in my mind ...”

Yes, you made up a story. Isn’t that what statement analysis does?

Anonymous said...

Please post analysis of Trump's genius tweets.