Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Statement Analysis: Paul Black on Death of Daughter



Pearl Black died as a result of an accident, while walking with her father.  Below is transcript and analysis from his public statement on her death. 

Analytical Question:  Is Paul Black reporting reliably what happened to his daughter?

PAUL:      The day it happened we  ….  It was a Sunday.  Emmm… we were both in the process of getting up, Gem was prob  …. I think Gem was changing or feeding Ace 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. She never says daddy swings and daddy park.  
We begin by noting that the account, for the subject, did not begin on the road, but when "we were both in the processing of getting up." This is his choice as to where to begin the event. This is very early.

He did not begin with the pronoun "I" which should cause us to consider that there may be some unreliable aspects to this account. Psychologically, when one is going to work from experiential memory and does not have the concern (uptick in stress) about withholding information, the subject is likely to begin confidently with the pronoun "I" more times than not.

Stress:

the stress is unique that is recognized here. The overall (greater context) is stressful: beloved daughter's death, cameras, public speaking, etc.

This is not the stress that Statement Analysis is addressing.

It is the stress of knowing one must self censor, quite carefully, that causes internal stress. This is why we say "lying causes stress."

Sociopathic subjects have this stress. It is not a moral issue, but one where the speed of transmission of thought to language experiences a disruption. Going into "what happened", knowing I must be careful to withhold certain points, will trigger stress.

This form of stress seeks alleviation or mitigation.

Sometimes the subject will do a light form of disassociation by not beginning with the pronoun "I" in a statement.

Sometimes the subject will seek to mitigate this stress by delay. This is where we see lengthy introductions, which slow the pace and delay getting to the point of the statement where withholding information is indicated. 

These things happen in the brain so quickly that some describe it as "subconscious." Although I do not ascribe to the technical use of this word, the general point is well taken. 


Here, the subject uses a lengthy introduction beginning with what "we" did; which indicates that regarding "what happened" to his daughter, psychologically, he may not want to be "alone" with the event. The lengthy introduction slows down the pace which is to alert the analyst that deception, particularly via withheld information, may come later in the statement.

This is why we measure statements one their form, as well as their pace. These are two mathematical formulas to help us identify reliable versus unreliable.

He uses 1040 words to describe what happened.

Reliable statements reflect human nature, with the estimate of:

25% of the words will introduce the main event
50% of the words will describe the main event. This is natural that the most words will be dedicated to the event.
25% of the words will then tell us what happened afterwards.

We find that the overwhelming number of deceptive or unreliable statements have an imbalance in the "before" part of the statement. This is consistent with the innate desire in human nature to delay internal stress.

For example, in a mugging in the park, one might

a. introduce going to the park with 250 words
b. describe the mugging with 500 words (its the most important part of the account)
c. describe what happened afterwards, including calling 911 or being aided by someone with 250 words.

This general breakdown would indicate "Reliable on its form", and although it does not eliminate the possibility for deception, it is another tool to assist us in the overall conclusion.

Anything close to 25/50/25 is acceptable. We look for significant deviation, particularly in the "before" period.

The Father's Account
Paul's account (removing Emma's) uses 1042 words.

His breakdown is:

Introduction: 576 words before getting to the event

The actual event uses 162 words to describe what happened.

After, he uses 306 words in his account.

The breakdown is:

A. 55 % Introduction
B. 15% What Happened 
C. 30% of what happened afterwards.

This is deemed "Unreliable On its Form" for the analysis.

We now return to his words:
PAUL:      The day it happened we  ….  It was a Sunday.  Emmm… we were both in the process of getting up, Gem was prob  …. I think Gem was changing or feeding Ace 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. She never says daddy swings and daddy park.

We then have him portraying himself as the "good" dad; with the very young victim coming to him with quotes is more consistent with what police call "story telling" than recall.  

This is of concern. Using "burst in" and "daddy" is used four times.

We also have the victim's name removed, at this time, from his vocabulary. This is a form of distancing himself from her, consistent with the lengthy delay in reporting what happened. He is the biological father, further increasing the sensitivity of the "unexpected" distancing language.

We then have the need to tell us why he was "delighted", which is, in context of age and relationship, unnecessary. A child's calling of a daddy's name is of natural delight; its inclusion should be considered similar to the principle of "I love you" in Statement Analysis.

I was once teaching this to investigators and explained that everyone loves their children, but the need to state this in a statement often indicates a poor relationship.

One investigator disrupted the training and said,

"I say 'I love you' to my daughter."

It was an awkward disruption and I sought to soothe out any ill will. I explained, "everyone loves their children. It is the need to persuade others, via the statement, that often indicates the opposite."

She persisted.

She said, "I get that, but I want people to know I love my daughter. I am going to say it in a statement."

Days prior to this training, her superior had consulted with me about mandatory reporting laws and ethics in child abuse cases. Her superior felt compelled to make a child protective report, both by law and by her own moral compass, out of fear for the child.

In fact, in domestic homicides, sometimes terms of endearment, when coupled with departures or salutations, can indicate the time of death.

The need to portray one as "good" often suggests the opposite. When one needs to explain "why" one was delighted, it becomes even more sensitive.

We sometimes see this in social media, such as Facebook, in principle. How many times does a spouse praise the love he or she has until friends recognize a marriage in trouble?

Here, the "need to persuade" increases. The subject has a distinct need to portray his emotions in a positive manner, while reporting the death of his daughter:

It’s only… I was just over the moon and I …..we were up early because I was in rehearsals for a play  ..eemmm .. and … the rehearsals took part  

In the account of his daughter's death (who has no name yet) he retreats out of sequence back to getting up early. Most parents of young children do not have the luxury of sleeping in late. It is to be noted that in the death of his child, he needs to tell us why he (changed to "we") were up early.

Promotional

One might consider why he felt the need to introduce rehearsals.

Recall the death of Amanda Blackburn and the husband's immediate capitalization of it. He needs us to know he was in "rehearsals for a play" with "rehearsal" repeated.

I read a public post in which the subject called the victim "infamous."


… they start around 10:30 and I said daddy work now and daddy come back and we go to the park with the swings, so I said to Gemma, “I’ll go to rehearsals and get her ready by the time we come back” and I’ll take her with me and we discuss what park and I said take her to the park (unintelligible) you know the big park or there’s a park just up from my mom’s there just at the top of main square. I went to rehearsals. 

Here we have a lot of detail about the park where the subject shows a need to convince his audience just how involved he is in his daughter's life, including having to instruct his wife on which specific park "with the swings" and "you know, the big park."

This not only slows down the pace but raises the question of bonding.

Note that in the statement, I do not know the victim's name.

Note that he also introduces, in the account of the death of his daughter, the location of the park as near his mother's home.

We note the inclusion of "my mom" in the statement, with the possessive pronoun "my", while the victim has not been named.

He now returns to his "play" and even gives the full name of the writer of the play:

 Emm ..I joked with Anthony Van Gogh the writer of the play  emm .. because I’ve learnt all my lines and everyone else says and I joked about the fact, I’m too good for this lot. 

He promotes the writer of the play. In context, he is using the televised appearance about the death of his daughter to give us details are not expected from one who is to tell us what happened.

The analyst should consider the priorities of the statement, including:
a. unnecessary topics
b. unnecessary details
c. new people introduced

He now portrays himself, in the manner of story telling, of one so efficient that he should be permitted to leave to go to the park with
Pearl.

Here we have the victim's name, "Pearl" used in a quote to the writer of the play, Anthony Van Gough:


 I said can I go early? I said Pearl wants me to take her to the park. I said I’m  .. I’m done. I can’t do any more, can I leave?

He then has the need to revisit "rehearsals" and portray himself as not only one who knows his lines and everyone else' lines, but one of a great work ethic. One should consider this promotion in context to the camera, and while telling the public what happened.

He praises the company.
He praises the cast.

He then has the need to tell us that his priority is get to the park.

Priority and Priorities

In Statement Analysis, we note what is one's priority (and priorities) separate from what one wishes to portray the priorities as.

A good way to understand this is in the mea culpa of politics with "taking responsibility."

There are those few who take responsibility, and there are those who write or state that they take responsibility.

These are two different things.

I never leave rehearsals early  cause it’s a great company and it’s a great cast and we have a good laugh but that day it was so strange because I just wanted to get out to there, like I said knew my bet I want to the park with her

The portrayal in a very slow pace continues: the subject is such a good actor that he knows all his lines and everyone else's lines and he never leaves rehearsals early.

This is a portrayal consistent with persuasion rather than reporting what happened.

It is a strong priority for the subject.

Now, note the dropped pronouns from one who has shown he knows how to use them. This is to psychologically remove himself:

Came home, Gem had her ready peppa coat, peppa wellies, peppa jeans the works. Jumped in the truck, off up to my mom’s to get Rolla my Boxer dog. . 

Psychologically, he ejects himself from the statement. Deeper analysis (outside the scope of a blog entry) would be done on this detail about "ready" including "coat, wells, jeans" and "the works." Suffice for now: This is the language of one burdened by childcare.

Next, note the next name to enter his statement:

"Rolla, my Boxer dog."

This has 3 components:

1. "Rolla" is the name of the dog
2. "my" is possessive pronoun of ownership
3. "Boxer dog" is the type (title)

This not only introduces Rolla into the account of his daughter's death, but elevates Rolla in importance by the complete social introduction.

He is very close to his dog.

His dog is now part of "what happened" to the victim.

He now indicates why the choice of park was so important to him to take "her" to: it was near his mom's, of where his dog (very close, complete social introduction) lives.

What appears out of sequence is only out of sequence to us. Once the analysis is complete, the pieces of the puzzle come together and show us why someone appeared to be out of sequence, or why something was given more detail than expected.

The details on the park now make sense. We continue to let the subject guide us. He continues:

a. avoiding her name
b. showing the burden of a toddler
c. portraying himself as a safety-conscious father

emm..she went to climb up the stairs ehm I said “no”, she always -   at my mom’s she take like a little drum on to the first step and sits there and taps it and I said no not up the stairs. So it all comes to “what if”, “buts” and “maybes”. If I hadn’t left rehearsals early, if I let her climb up another step, you know  ..eeeh

Pearl has no name in the event; only in the quote to the writer of the play. This is to distance himself from her, even while giving us verbal indicators of a lack of bonding and care of her.

The "what if" principle is guilt by both innocent and guilty subjects. Regret, remorse, pain, and such, are all real, in both innocent and guilty subjects.

Gemma has the need to defend Paul and it is very sensitive.

GEMMA:   because she’s she’s never, to put in context, she’s never here on Sunday afternoon because Paul’s out at band practice or rehearsals whatever. We pack up and probably go out to my parents for the afternoon, because she’s never here.
PAUL:   She’s never here, so unusual, she shouldn’t have been here.
GEMMA:  She should have been having Sunday dinner.

"She" is used for the victim, but note it is not so for "Rolla" who is given praise for being well behaved and trained. All he needs to do is "click my fingers."

Context: All he needs to do is "click my fingers" is part of what happened to his daughter. This is according to his statement.
PAUL:   And I said - I had Ace -and I said I’m gonna walk him to the park cause Rolla’s so well behaved, he’s he’s always off the lead and Sundays up that area is relatively quiet and I’ve only got to click my fingers and he’s… he’s to heel and he’s a well trained dog.

My mom hasn’t got a gate on her house. The driveway just come up off on to the pavement from the main road, so like I say, Rolla was off the lead but to heel ..umm.. 

He has the need to repeat (self reference) the dog's status: "off lead" which is very important to the subject about what happened to his daughter.

"...so like I say, Rolla was off the lead but to heal..."

Rolla's name is used again.
Rolla's position (off lead) is very important to what happened to his daughter. This is insight into his thinking and expectation of child behavior.

he then has the need to explain that being off lead is not concerning because he was "to heal."

We now get to the event:


I had Ace in my left arm and Pearl was walking again to heel cause she was , she was never one to run, she was only just, she hadn’t been long walking so, you know she was …

The blue highlighting is used to draw the eye's attention to very sensitive information.

He portrays Pearl as one "never" to run, but "just" hadn't been walking long...

Here is an answer for us in his own words. He has a need to tell us what "never" happened before. It is to set up the scenario of "surprise" for his audience.

This is for parents a time when children often bruise and fall because they attempt to run routinely. It is not just one out of touch with child development, it is the need to tell the public, on camera, that:

a. Pearl is walking to heel., using dog terminology. This affirms the distance in the bond we see above.
b. Pearl "never" runs (which strains credibility) to set up the story of what Pearl did.
c. The need to explain why Pearl was "to heal"

The tying together the dog and the child is specifically about "healing" (walking close, not running ahead) to him. He is revealing to us what happened.

Gemma defends this position:


GEMMA:   She was late to walk, she was waking when she was 17 months.

Parents with toddlers and parents with children "late to walk" will understand the instability and constant vigilance during these time periods of child development. Toddlers do not carefully walk; they lunge into a run.  It is always precarious.

It is also why he had the need to tell us that Pearl "never" ran.

This understanding is not in Paul's language. In fact, the lack of understanding, the lack of bonding and the use of dog training terminology (alarming) for a toddler, is met by the language of impatience. This is consistent with the need to portray "daddy" as thrilled above.
PAUL:  Ya and it was yeah, she wasn’t one of these children to run off, she would just walk, she plodded along. 

For one who just "snaps" his fingers, the child victim "plodded" along.

She was right by my knees 

This is reliably stated with "she" and her location in the past tense verb, with no unnecessary language. This is similar to a dog healing. It is now to set up the 'surprise' moment of the story.

Yet here, he introduces sight (optics) into the equation: she was too small for him to see.

This is not truthful, but it is his way of telling us what happened and what he couldn't be his fault: it is, in a subtle manner, a blaming of the victim. She "plodded", testing his patience. He continues to subtly shift responsibility from himself to the victim:


and she was only a dot, she’s only a tiny little thing you know and she was on my left hand side and we got 3 foot from the curb, 3 feet from the curb and I had Ace here (showing his left arm), I transferred him into my right hand, then as I was doing that I bent down to say daddy's hand now, tight tight tight” and my head was like this and I could hear the noise of something and I looked up and I could see this vehicle coming toward us at such a rate and I screamed at the vehicle, I obviously can’t say on camera what I shouted , ummm.. to stop and realised there was nobody in it, let her hand go and grabbed her coat. I threw Ace into the road the vehicle then hit the wall ..umm.. the wall came down and the wall snatched..

There is something wrong with his statement. This is where we see a description of what he intended to do, instead of truthfully telling us what he did do. This is a common tactic in deceptive accounts.

He won't say on camera what he said to the driver (his portrayal of himself is a priority here, as the "good guy") but he did post calling a female driver a "c***" in a dispute, publicly.

This is the need, in context, to be the "good guy" due to his behavior, which was not the good guy.

Gemma intervenes:
GEMMA:  You couldn’t move her quick enough.
PAUL:  So I couldn’t throw her into the road quick enough. The wall took her from me. I can’t say any more.

He is not reliably reporting what happened in this accident.

a. Note the need to assign blame to the "wall"
b. Note the self censoring.
c. Note the absence of the dog here.
GEMMA:  I was in the retail park buying bedding (pause) such an insignificant thing to be doing and Paul rung me and I thought he said Terry which is Paul’s stepdad. So I come rushing up from the retail park to the scene where the wall fell expected it to be my father-in-law when it’s Pearl in the road.  I got there before the ambulance and anything arrived.
Gemma crying:  Ok no I can go on. (responding to interviewer) She wasn’t airlifted, that was widely reported. The air ambulance did come but she went by ambulance but she wasn’t airlifted. (some of this was unintelligible). They worked for ages.
PAUL:  They worked on her at the scene for ages. She died in my arms, she died instantly from the incident that I had to drag her from. 


Note the need to assign blame. Above she died from the wall who took her from him (passive voice) and here it is from an "incident"-- the need to unnecessarily conclude is noted.

Note the focus on self: "I had to drag her" and:


She was gone in my arms and I had to put her on the floor. 

the focus returns, naturally, to him. We see this throughout and we see it post event.

But then they took her then in the ambulance and we were in the police car that escorted the ambulance.  And there was a crash team and all the staff were waiting at the hospital and then the doctor came through then and told us she was no longer with us which I knew anyway because of what I had seen and ..emm..  they proceeded to pump us full of Diazepam because we’re beside ourselves.
GEMMA:  They kept Ace overnight for observation.
PAUL: They keep Ace in for obs. And we were all in the same bed together  (long pause) through the night.
GEMMA:  The staff at Prince Charles were absolutely amazing, they literally cordoned us off, wouldn’t let anyone in. They kept the chapel open for us ..(pause) open till midnight.
PAUL:   between the births and the deaths of our children they’ve been amazing.
GEMMA:  They kept the chapel open till midnight err.. didn’t want us to be on our own, they were really awesome.
PAUL:  The kindness, the love, the spirit the general coming together of a community through such a tragic circumstance. Somebody actually compared it to Aberfan
GEMMA: (unintelligible) people who could have been from that era (Aberfan disaster). Phone calls from mothers of children who were killed in the Aberfan disaster. Saying “I couldn’t even image how you feel, we had each other. That this happened to your little girl and you’re on your own.” She knows lots of ..  she is the same age as my mother. The mothers who lost children in the disaster. Like you know, we can’t even imagine how you are feeling. I went to the Carphone warehouse yesterday to start a phone contract and I had to sit on the floor in floods of tears cause a guy I knew from school I hadn’t seen him since asked me how many children I had instant. You know he didn’t know. I haven’t seen him since I was in school.
PAUL:  I was in Kroger getting some stuff for the shop err .. and a little girl coming round the corner in a pink coat pink boots pink hat, I said HIYA HIYA I literally screamed OMG and the mother must have been frightened and grabbed the girl and I had to run around the corner. I couldn’t cope with it and all the little girls the other day in Tesco (?) walking around in their Halloween costumes and stuff it ..I  just with that birthday, Gemma said the other day the birthday it’s for hers, her first birthday.  (unintelligible) wasn’t here but Christmas
GEMMA:  it’s for everyone, it’s his first Christmas.
PAUL:  Gotta be strong and entertaining as we can be. (Talking over each other)

GEMMA:  It’s not going to shape his life we don’t want him to be the kid who’s sister died. You know he needs as much normality as possible and we are going to strive to do that as much as we can. Christmas is going to be horrendous but it’s not going to be horrendous for him.


Analysis Conclusion:

The child died via accidental death. It was not intentional.

The subject is deceptive about what led to her death. 

It is likely that Pearl did not "heel" at the "snap of his fingers" the way his dog did, and did the very thing she "never" did: ran ahead.

Child Neglect is indicated.

He may have even lost sight of her (see portion on "optics" he describes above) even if momentarily. He may have had his focus on his dog, which gets a more favorable linguistic disposition than his daughter.

He does not reliably report what happened, however, and it is the presence of the dog which is the most sensitive to him, even while he shows narcissistic tendencies and career promotion. His need to tell us how she "never" ran off signals that she ran off but that he is not to blame because he could not predict it because:

she "never" did that before. This is what many people do when they wish to surprise, rather than truthfully report. "My dog never bit before", "I've never stolen before", "I never hit my children" and so on. It is to set up a scenario (police call "story telling") or "narrative build" a statement rather than report.

His need to persuade us of what a great father he was indicates self awareness of his poor parenting, which affirms Neglect.

One might consider if attention focused upon the dog, Neglect which, if not present, might have saved Pearl from death as she ran off into an accident. At one point, Pearl was "to heel" but then she no longer was and "the wall took her away" from him.  

This is a powerful denial of personal responsibility assigning blame to the inanimate object.

The subject's psycho-linguistic profile is a separate study from this article but it does reveal a narcissistic type who had minimal bonding with his daughter, and a powerful drive for self promotion.

That his focus may have been on the dog rather than the child would produce the "Statement Analysis guilt" noted in the distancing language.

Emma had a closer bond.

The subject's need, as priority is in persuading his audience of him as a good father. It is in the need to persuade that weakness is evident.

The lack of bonding (and familiarity with childcare, development, and even daily duties) would only increase the subject's pain and suffering at the loss of his daughter.

The loss of a child is a traumatizing event in which all suffer. Some believe that those with regret, due to lack of bonding, may suffer even more so.

Question: Does this indicate criminal Neglect?

Answer: Only investigators could answer this question. I do not believe so, but this is something the police and/or child protective services would need to answer. If the subject was under the influence, for example, or the deliberately withheld information has other elements beyond, perhaps tending to the dog, it could be.

In reading other statements made by the subject, he appears to have anger issues as well as some of the entitlement traits we see in the elite (actors and actresses.) He can blister in vile terms in rage at strangers, posting it on social media, but then reports his modesty at not using foul language on the program. His image, as seen in both presentation and word, is very important to him as counter-culture or rebellious. As an actor, he utilized this appearance for promotion, which may explain why he even called his daughter "infamous" on social media.

He has shown acute need to "rally" those around him to support him, as a priority that supersedes the loss of his child. He is, in this sense, about self preservation, particularly of his image as an actor and performer. This has a similar vein to the McCanns.

Emma's own suffering is likely increased by her knowledge of his lack of bonding, patience, anger, and low understanding of child development. She likely has worried about his temper and his insistence in dog training like obedience from his children. 

This would only increase her sense of responsibility.

This does not mean the subject did not love his child. 

It indicates the likelihood of Neglect, by one who's priority in life is his career.

The form of the statement showed "Unreliable" and the actual analysis indicates it as such.

Pearl died an unintentional death. It was an accident, but it was a preventable accident.

The language indicates that the withheld information is critical to the death, and likely a result of parental Neglect. His language not only reveals deception via withheld information, but one of whom would not make for a safe primary care giver of a child incapable of self protection.

Under the crucible of such a horrific event, we find character coming to the surface, via the words.


If you wish to join the many professionals formally trained in Statement Analysis, we offer both in-house seminars (with emphasis on Law Enforcement, Child Protective and Sex Crimes Units) as well as at home study, which comes with 12 months of support. 

Hyatt Analysis Services

173 comments:

Anonymous said...

I live in the area and would not want my opinion known

Lucia D said...

Thank you Peter, for the great explanation and analysis! Poor Gemma, I'm sure you are right that she must have tremendous guilt for leaving both babies alone with Paul. The way she kept propping him up during the interview (even putting words in his mouth) is heart breaking in that context. Like she is taking on most of the guilt for him - because she feels herself negligent for leaving her babies alone in his care.

Sara H said...

I'm curious. What is your opinion? You can remain anonymous! :)

ima.grandma said...

Peter, I'm pleased to read your professional analysis supported by steadfast adherence to SA principles in analyzing Paul's pattern of speech and behavior.

Local anon, many of the articles posted mentioned witnesses or neighbors (all of who did not wish to be identified) bringing even more questions to the forefront.

Buckley said...

Peter- If he watched Pearl die by a wall falling on her, would we expect sensitivity in his words that indicate trauma/PTSD, or that indicate psychological issues processing it, that if it were a normal event being reported, we would flag as deceptive and unreliable.

I didn't ask that well but hopefully makes enough sense.

Buckley said...

Relating to the wall killing her, not events before or after.

Buckley said...

And I think it's a spot-on analysis- thank you!

Trigger said...

Great Post.

I had a hard time understanding what he was saying as his statements were so broken and awkward sounding to me.

He embarks on his story like an airhead who cares more about his dog than his child.

Anonymous said...

This is off topic: There had been a case of sexual assault in 2015, the college student Brock Turner had sexually assaulted an unconsious woman. She had a blackout and doesn't remember. She wrote a "powerful victim letter" though. I wondered if you could take a look at it, Peter? I didn't quite believe her in 2015, and today reading the letter with a bit of knowledge in SA I believe I see why.

Buckley said...

I've got an OT suggestion for one to study as well, an historical speech, John Brown's last speech before his sentencing to death. Other teachers and I were preparing for a lesson on it, we read it before planning and my first instinct was he was deceptive. My colleagues were surprised by this and I proceeded to give them an SA lesson they were intrigued by...

Buckley said...

Address of John Brown to the Virginia Court at Charles Town, Virginia on November 2, 1859

I have, may it please the court, a few words to say.

In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, -- the design on my part to free slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to do the same thing again, on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), -- had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends -- either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class -- and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

The court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done -- as I have always freely admitted I have done -- in behalf of His despied poor, was not wrong, but right. Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments. -- I submit; so let it be done!

Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected. I feel no consciousness of my guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention, and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of any kind.

Let me say also, a word in regard to the statements made by some to those conncected with me. I hear it has been said by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with, till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.

Peter Hyatt said...

I have strong opinions on John Brown and they fall in line with other criminal opportunists who hide themselves behind a right cause as a cover for their own nature.

Politics and Religion can attract such en masse. When they are talented, they can become even more influential and dangerous.

Fascinating post.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anon and others,


Several people contacted me not wishing to be identified for fear of their own safety.

They did not believe the subject.

If you view his profile, as well as the emotional illogical reaction by his fans, they are wise to remain anonymous.

Peter

Lisa21222 said...

The transcript reads: "I’ve learnt all my lines and everyone else says..."

I heard "I’ve learnt all my lines, and everyone else's..."

Peter Hyatt said...

Trigger said...
Great Post.

I had a hard time understanding what he was saying as his statements were so broken and awkward sounding to me.

He embarks on his story like an airhead who cares more about his dog than his child.
January 9, 2018 at 12:01 PM


This is not far from the truth. Even an untrained listener is going to say, "this is a lot of positive words towards the dog, but not so much towards the victim."

His priority is himself.

He is unfamiliar with basic child development. It would be most unpleasant for his children, should he parent alone. Children need boundaries, which bring safety, but once established, need freedom to grow, explore and, in confidence, move out to the unknown. The confidence comes from the boundaries set early and often.

Dogs need boundaries, period, if they are to be safe in society. Our German Shepherd is protection trained, but my 2 1/2 year old granddaughter can remove a meat bone from his mouth. Still, this is not something to be tested, nor unsupervised: he is a dog, not a human.

Interestingly enough, for the purposes of SA, pets are "human" as some elevate them to (or even above) fellow humans, particularly due to trauma or betrayal.
**************************************************************************************************



A deeper profile suggests criminality. I think those who are concerned about publicly disagreeing with his followers have justification, within his language (here and in social media) for their concerns.

I do not believe he intended her death, but is responsible via Neglect. He is not truthful.

Peter

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter!!

between the births and the deaths of our children they’ve been amazing.

Segue/tangent. Death/children is plural.


The subject's psycho-linguistic profile is a separate study from this article but it does reveal a narcissistic type who had minimal bonding with his daughter, and a powerful drive for self promotion.

Like the way he was carrying his daughter’s casket rather than standing by his wife’s side? They both loss a daughter. All eyes on him.


Answer: Only investigators could answer this question. I do not believe so, but this is something the police and/or child protective services would need to answer. If the subject was under the influence, for example, or the deliberately withheld information has other elements beyond, perhaps tending to the dog, it could be.

CPS was referenced in some of the early reporting I read.

Also, I was thinking that “early”was referenced a few times. Not just in regards to when they got up, but leaving rehearsal, too, which to me makes it sensitive. I think it was Hey Jude who initially enquired about under the influence. If Paul was up very late Saturday night, and he was drinking (someone said he was three years sober on FB, but there is reference to a statement he made about alcohol and pills, and note "they proceeded to pump us full of Diazepam because we’re beside ourselves. “ (we are - present tense, so still on some sort of sedative?) My point being if he was up early after partying all night, he could have technically still been under the influence and why his story switched from driving to walking. They would have asked him to take a sobriety test had the accident involved his driving and the kids in the truck.

Lucia D said...

I too wonder if Paul was impaired by any substance at the time of the accident. It would help explain why taking 2 babies, sans stroller, and an unleashed dog for a walk seemed reasonable to him. Interesting that the diazepam was important enough to him to include it in the interview.

ima.grandma said...

Actors are often taught to lower—not raise—their voice to highlight certain points. They’re also taught to intentionally slow down the tempo of their speech. This signals to listeners that what they’re about to say is important and needs to be retained. In short, they’re taught to slow down for emphasis .

Pausing is a stalling technique Paul uses throughout his story.  Liars need time to create their stories, while the truth usually rolls right out.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for analysing this, Peter.

It is so sad.

I saw similarities to the way DB self-promoted, too.

I wonder if he feels angry or resentful towards Pearl in some way, to refer to her almost every time as 'she' rather than by her name? Might he avoid saying her name simply because he is so angry that she is dead?

---

Nic - SS - Social Services would be the government agency involved in child protection in the U.K, while CPS is the Crown Prosecution Service. It was not me who enquired if he was under the influence - I said he had posted on social media that he has had issues with alcohol in the past.


ima.grandma said...

Jude, thank you for the clarification re:SS and CPS. I wondered because of the several times CPS was mentioned throughout the comments on the previous posts.

I also wonder if Gemma perhaps "guilted" Paul into missing rehearsal practice this one particular Sunday morning and spending quality time with his children especially since Pearl's never here, never says etc.. Perhaps that is where her guilt comes from though we don't have enough sample language from her to conclude.

Nic said...

Thank you, Hey Jude, re CPS.

Prayers for Pearl and God speed justice prevails.

ima.grandma said...

I left out:

Maybe because of Gemma's "guilting", we have the language of ...Paul: I said can I go early? I said Pearl wants me to take her to the park. I said I’m  .. I’m done. I can’t do any more, can I leave. I never leave so early  

Alex said...

“I’ll go to rehearsals and get her ready by the time we come back”

This statement bothers me. When he says, "rehearsals and," is that self editing or missing info? meaning he planned to go somewhere in addition to rehearsals. If he is gone to rehearsals he can't get her ready unless he took her with him.

Alex

Lars Bak said...

I think this is what he says:

“I’ll go to rehearsals" and "get her ready by the time we come back”

ima.grandma said...

Alex, that statement has also bothered me. I eventually chalked it up to a possible transcription or recording issue. I didn't think of him taking Pearl with him. My first instinct (not a valid SA principle) was that he had a buddy pick him up or the buddy was already there. I admit (embarrassed, because his language did not tell me so) I thought about the possibility that they went on a drug run before practice. I know it sounds judgmental and cynical. What can I say but that I'm human and make mistakes, every day. Instinct has no place in SA but honesty does. I live and I learn. Thank you for all your lessons, Peter.

Anonymous said...

I think instinct can have a huge part in SA, but conclusions MUST be strictly buttressed thru the principals.

I think that's where some people have difficulty. Their instincts are correct but the SA isn't within their conclusions leading to errors later on. Peter has said this many times.

ima.grandma said...

Well said anon.

Hey Jude said...

I think it was an order 'get her ready' - he maybe speaks to everyone as though he is commanding his dog.

I am intrigued by what a deeper analysis of that would yield - (and of Amanda Blackburn 'getting ready'?)

Ima - I haven't thought much about what Gemma said - her husband is confusing enough. I found interesting the attention she gave to her nails, as though she was not so impressed or on board with what her husband was saying.

'Gut wrenching' really is the most apt phrase for that interview, for so many reasons.

ima.grandma said...

Jude, I'm somewhat relieved my old iPad wouldn't bring up the video. I do feel heartbroken for Gemma through her language. She is supportive as she speaks. She reveals her gratitude for the medical staff and portrays empathy for other mothers she heard from. She seems to have further progressed through the stages of grief than her husband. She shows steps toward healing. She must, she still has Ace. I perceive her to be the stronger of the two.

Anonymous said...

I will read Peters analysis when I get freed up & hopefully it change my opinion on this case. Paul's words imo show a startling lack of reliability beginning at the very stsrt of his tale. OI am deeply skeptical of his narrative but I will hopefully be swayed by Peters analysis.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Gemma and Paul had a fight about him not spending time with Pearl and Gemma pushed it. Then Pearl died on Paul's watch, which she knew could be a negligent watch. That could explain her behavior and supporting/talking for Paul. She felt guilty because she knew Paul wasn't a bonded, connected or observant parent but pushed him, trying to make it so.

Anonymous said...

Also I am concerned about the word "door" just as inthe Ramsey case we are concerned aboutthe word "light" n'est pas?

Lucia D said...

Ha! I suspect he does speak to anyone he considers subordinate in that way. And that would be most people, excluding the playwright he so respectfully introduced.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible he screamed when he saw the car coming towards them and then the child, frightened by his tone, took off running beyond his grasp?

How people can blame someone for a freak accident is beyond even the American way.
Alot of people do not bond with their children, and they should not be held responsible when tragedy beyond their control strikes...it causes more mental illness than just drugs or alcohol.

Sorry, but this is a fluke in my opinion.

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
Ima - I haven't thought much about what Gemma said - her husband is confusing enough. I found interesting the attention she gave to her nails, as though she was not so impressed or on board with what her husband was saying.


Note too how she plays with her engagement/wedding ring. Her marriage is on her mind.

ima.grandma said...

Lucia, I'm beginning to re-read the initial post and comments. Would you mind listing the reasons you believe(d) the following comment you made:

my impression was this interview took place mere days after the events?

I have been so focused on the element of time and timing. There is something off and I'm not able to satisfy my brain's inquiries.

Lucia D said...

People who do not bond with their children (even if their are “lots” of them) should never have had children. This father’s actions were below the standard of responsible parenting, Was it a “fluke”that a runaway truck came their way? Of course, and many parents “get away” with this kind of negligence without such a tragic result. But that does not mean the parents weren’t neglectful.

Anonymous said...

It is not uncommon for some men to not bond totally with children prior to walking, talking or being really interactive. Whether this was the case or not with Paul, he does come across as very self-involved. This very well could have been a freak accident, partially/completely due to Paul's negligence but his narcissistic inability to take any real responsibility leads him to deceptive statements, but not that he wanted Pearl to die.

As Peter mentioned, Paul is also about self-promotion, I don't think he planned Pearl's death, but he's trying to capitalize on it.

Lucia D said...

Hi Ima. That was because I only watched the interview so as not to be contaminated by further research. So at the time I had no idea how far after her death the interview was conducted. And I had a hard time hearing some of what was said on the video. I was mistaken.

Lucia D said...

I agree completely.

ima.grandma said...

Thank you Lucia. That makes sense!

Anonymous said...

Peters analysis was excellent.
The part about optics & Paul calling Pearl "just a dot" was very interesting.
I wonder if Paul saying she was "just a dot" could mean Pearl was actually quite a distance away from him when the wall collapsed.
Also, isnt there an expression people use to describe cars or people who are at a long distance away from their car when they say "the car was just a dot on my rearview mirror" or "he/she was just a dot in my rearview mirror"?

Gosh, I cant shake the feeling there is something major Paul is hiding about the story.

Lucia D said...

Well, Anon, given the extreme sensitivity Paul shows in his language? He is hiding something major. We will never know for sure exactly what, but negligence in caring for Pearl that day is a given. Possibly even more if he was not sober.

ima.grandma said...

A couple of interesting statements

“We know nothing will ever be normal again,” added Paul. “It can come from nowhere and get you in a chokehold. I was physically floored last Saturday, my legs had gone and I couldn’t stand up. I cried so hard.

He said: “If it wasn’t for Ace I would have hit a bottle of Jack Daniels and a bunch of pills.

Paul: "She was gone in my arms and I had to put her on the floor."

Gemma: ..."I went to the Carphone warehouse yesterday to start a phone contract and I had to sit on the floor in floods of tears..."

ima.grandma said...

PAUL:      The day it happened we  ….  

Leave out these extra words ...these words are part of the storytelling:
It was a Sunday.  
Emmm… we were both in the process of getting up, 
Gem was  …. I think Gem was changing or feeding Ace as far as I can recall 

and then she came   …..  again burst in through the door

We have: The day it happened we?  ….(missing information)  then she came again burst in through the door

"It" happened when they were getting up (implying bedroom). Gemma was out of the room. Paul is alone in the room. For the second time, Pearl comes bursting through the door, could he have slammed the door to avoid interruption? and that is why he mentions the door?

Anonymous said...

Ima, I believe her death occurred in the home at precisely the time you are saying it did.
Did he slam the door on her? I dont think he did.
As Peter pointed out, Paul uses dog-training language to describe Pearl. Please note that DOGS will burst in through a door.
This does not mean the dog wss there & burst in through a door. It means Paul treated Pearl in a very degrading way & viewed her as lower than his own dog.
Note : When Paul says "No!" to Pearl he uses the tone of voice one used to reprimand a dog.
If Paul views Pearl as lower than his dog, many possible scenarios are possible, all of them horrific.

Anonymous said...

Where did Paul place Pearl?
"On the floor."
Where do dogs sleep?
On the floor.
Sometimes on "bedding" on the floor.
What did Gemma go buy?
New bedding.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said....

Pearl died an unintentional death. It was an accident, but it was a preventable accident.

The language indicates that the withheld information is critical to the death, and likely a result of parental Neglect.

Anonymous said...

If a toddler was at the bottom of a flight of stairs, they could appear to someone at the top of the stairs as "just a dot".
Paul tells us Pearl likes to sit on the bottom step & Paul told her "NO!" about climbing up the stairs. Was Paul looking down at her from the top
of his basement stairs and that is why she appeared as "just a dot" to Paul?

Anonymous said...

"Burst" through door: Was she confined somewhere behind a door?
Did Paul "drag her rrom the wall?
Or did he drag her back down the stairs when she climbed up the basement stairs and was crying/pounding on door to be let out. Did she want to "burst through the door"?

ima.grandma said...

I agree Peter. It's not my intent of my last two comments to imply otherwise.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thank you, Peter for the very good lesson. Because you explained about noting when someone is "introduced" into the account, I noticed Ace warranted a name, but only after Rolla's complete introduction. Not only is Ace not properly introduced as Pau's son, but he's actually just a mention, sandwiched between Paul talking/bragging about Rolla by name a second time.

PAUL: "Came home, Gem had her ready peppa coat, peppa wellies, peppa jeans the works. Jumped in the truck, off up to my mom’s to get Rolla my Boxer dog."

PAUL: "And I said - I had Ace -and I said I’m gonna walk him to the park cause Rolla’s so well behaved, he’s he’s always off the lead and Sundays up that area is relatively quiet and I’ve only got to click my fingers and he’s… he’s to heel and he’s a well trained dog."

(smh) Paul not only never used Pearl's name, he never verbally picked up or got either child to take to the park...but he "got" Rolla.

Pearl is a nuisance to Paul, both plodding along and not "heeling" (Paul: "...Pearl was walking again to heel..."). Ace, the portable child requiring less supervision, was an afterthought. It was Rolla who had his attention, or rather, his attention was focused on flaunting how well-trained his dog was (in light of the laws that all dogs must be leashed, taking Rolla to a park posted no dogs). Paul was busy being a rebel, demonstrating his anarchy via his well-trained dog...too consumed with thumbing his nose at the rules/authority, being Mr. Attitude, to actually be paying attention to Pearl (or even Ace). It's a very big deal deal to throw your small baby into the street, onto pavement. I'm going to guess since Rolla suddenly disappeared from the narrative, that his concern was saving Rolla-that Rolla might get hit, not Pearl or Ace.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

PAUL: "I had Ace in my left arm and Pearl was walking again to heel ‘cause she was , she was never one to run, she was only just, she hadn’t been long walking so, you know she was..."- At some point Pearl was not walking to heel and the inclusion of "again" signals Paul's frustration with Pearl . Coupled with, "she was never one to run", suggests she had indeed been running and Paul caused her to "to heel". Paul uses "she hadn't been walking long" as an attempt to further persuade that not only she hadn't run, but that she couldn't run yet. He implies it, but does not say it because that would be a lie and he does not want to outright lie.

PAUL: "Ya and it was yeah, she wasn’t one of these children to run off, she would just walk, she plodded along."- Anything reported in the negative is sensitive. The shortest sentence would be Pearl was walking along or even Pearl plodded along. He wants the listener to know what Pearl wasn't, before what she was. His use of "these" versus those"- this is close, that is distant ("these children" are close to the subject while those children are removed from the subject showing distance). Pearl ran and I think as all toddlers do when learning to walk and run, she ran from him. I'd say by his language, she got away from him at least twice on the trip: Once when she had to brought to "walking again to heel" and once when he bent down to say "daddy's hand now, tight, tight, tight " and yet he "let her hand go and grabbed her coat" (dropped pronouns). He says "she was right by my knees, then "she was only a dot", qualifies it with "she's only a tiny little thing you know", followed with "she was on my left-hand side"- Note the change in position. She was walking to heel, then right by his knees, then she was a dot, and then "on my left-hand side" (the wall side). For someone who's articulated how well-trained his dog is and his perception of his daughter "heeling", "on his left-side is alarmingly vague. He's verbalizing that she is some distance away from him. I don't believe he had her by the hand or grabbed her coat. He will not admit he didn't have Pearl "under control", that he wasn't paying close enough attention to her to hold her hand or keep her by his side (either heeling or at his knees). That's why the wall "took" Pearl.

I'm actually questioning if Rolla the Boxer is really all that well-behaved, for as much time as he spends talking about it in context to Pearl dying. I wonder if Rolla took off and Pearl went running after him (since Rolla completely verbally disappears from the scene).

Anonymous said...

Boxers are relatively big and rambunctious dogs. I figured the reason that the dog was at his mom's house was could be because she had more space. Or maybe the dog had demonstrated worrisome behavior around the kids and Gemma was concerned.

I think the dog disappears from the narrative after Pearl's accident because it is no longer Paul's focus, but rather what caused him not to focus on Pearl. It was what was on his mind and in his behavior prior to Pearl getting hit. The dog distracted him from paying attention to Pearl. After Pearl got hit the dog was not his focus or concern.

He just can't admit that.

ima.grandma said...

Fools,
(since Rolla completely verbally disappears from the scene).

I noticed that too.

I read one of the very few reported anonymous neighbors said they saw Paul playing with the kids in the yard (when?) but the dog wasn't mentioned.

ima.grandma said...

I hesitate to post this link as I'm not sure which MSM sources are considered more reliable than others in the UK.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/baby-daughter-voice-star-killed-10944034

A South Wales Police spokesperson said: "We can confirm officers responded to an emergency call at an address in Heolgerrig, Merthyr Tydfil. A female child was taken to hospital by air ambulance after an incident involving a single vehicle understood to be unoccupied at the time. Tragically, the infant died shortly afterwards."

I'm more familiar with MSN's and BBC's reporting and do have some trust in their reporting:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pearl-black-one-year-old-daughter-of-the-voice-star-paul-black-killed-in-freak-car-accident/ar-AApBdrG
Pearl was taken to Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr Tydfil by air ambulance after the incident at 1.39pm on Sunday but died a short time later.

A South Wales Police spokesman said: "We can confirm officers responded to an emergency call at an address in Heolgerrig, Merthyr Tydfil.

"A female child was taken to hospital by air ambulance after an incident involving a single vehicle understood to be unoccupied at the time.

"Tragically, the infant died shortly afterwards."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-40851024
Pearl was taken to Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr Tydfil by air ambulance but died a short time later.
Her brother suffered minor injuries, police said.

I've read multiple, multiple different articles the last three days, I'm unable to find a single article reporting Pearl transported by anything but an air ambulance. 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/range-rover-rolled-wall-killing-13457838
The court heard paramedics attended and Pearl was airlifted to Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr Tydfil where she died a short time later.

Mr Heatley said Pearl’s father Paul Black identified her body the same day and a post-mortem examination was carried out on Wednesday.


Gemma: "I got there before the ambulance and anything arrived. (crying):  Ok no I can go on. (responding to interviewer) She wasn’t airlifted, that was widely reported. The air ambulance did come but she went by ambulance but she wasn’t airlifted."


Is MSM, in any country, to be trusted to tell the public (us) the truth? It causes me internal stress to realize the answer is "NO!"

Bobcat said...

"Um. She went to climb up the stairs, and I said no.
She o- Uh, at my mom’s she takes like a little drum on to the first step and sits there and taps it.
Um. I said no, not up the stairs."


Here is an incomplete action by Pearl, along with a repeated reliable statement by Paul.
She went to climb up the stairs. Paul said no. He repeats "I said no."
Then he stops to reflect on "what ifs"

"So it’s, it all comes to what if facts, or maybes, you know, if I hadn’t left rehearsals early, if I h-, if I let her climb up another step, you know. Ah."

I think at this point, Pearl has been told "no" and accidentally been harmed beyond help. Paul stops his story at that point because the segment in which Pearl is alive is over.

Gemma then pipes up to "put it into context" why Pearl is dead.

"Because"
1) Pearl is never in Paul's care on a Sunday afternoon
2) Paul is always at band practice, or at a rehearsal, whatever.
3) She shouldn’t have been here.
4) She should be having her Sunday dinner.

Next, Paul continues with the dog walking car accident portion of the story.
He begins multiple sentences with "And", indicating missing information.
He laughs at his own statement that Pearl was walking "again, to heel", and repeatedly self-censors when saying anything about Pearl's presence.

[ ] And Pearl was walking again [Paul laughs-duping delight?], to heel because she was-
She never wen sh- an- d- run.
She was only just.
She hadn’t long been walking so, you know it.
She was, she was-
[ ] And it was uh.
She never- she wasn’t one of these children who run off or-
She’d, just walk.
She’d plod along.
She was right by my knees and she was only a dot.
She’s only a tiny little thing you know.
[ ] And she was to my left hand side and we got about 3 foot from the curb, 3 feet from the curb.
[ ] And I had Ace here.
I transferred him into my right hand, and as I was doing that I bent down to say daddys hand now, tight tight tight.
[ ] And my head was like this and I could hear the noise, of something.
[ ] And I looked up, and I could see this vehicle coming towards us at such a rate.
[ ] And I screamed at the vehicle.

Anonymous said...

So Bobcat are you saying that Pearl didn't die at the wall? But she died before they went to the park?

Anonymous said...

Why would Paul LAUGH when he said

"Pearl was walking again to heel"?

Paul describes Pearl in 2 VERY different ways:

1) Bursting through door and saying Daddy swings Daddy park/he is just delighted & over the moon/Gemma gets her ready in Peppa jeans Peppa coat the works

2) Paul reprimands her like a dog regarding stairs "I said NO!"/ Pearl walking like a dog "to heel" Paul laughs (sadistically?)/ Pearl is just a dot/Pearl dies instantly

Part 1) Charming father/daughter interaction

Part 2) Victim becomes more & more degraded/belittled

treating her like a dog>>>>>she becomes a "dot">>>>>she dies

Anonymous said...

One thing I find odd: When my son was that age, I often took him for walks & when telling my sister about the walk, I remember a central focus would often be what we saw...for example my son saying "geese" or "neigh-neigh" (that is what he called a horse) or a pond, etc or he was crying he wanted to get out of stroller or he fell asleep or he ran across the field at park. Why is there nothing Pearl is saying or looking at or wanting to do on the walk? Kids that age LOVE to say the name of what they SEE on a walk.

Anonymous said...

If Pauls dog went "to heel" at the mere click of Pauls fingers, Pauls dog was probably scared of him as a result of physical abuse.

Nic said...

Interesting thought, Fools, about the basement stairs. Someone posted on an earlier thread that they live in a bungalow, so the only stairs I envisioned were the front steps (at both the family home and Paul’s mom’s home) because it’s where Paul reports Pearl would sit on the bottom step and tap the drum. But if they have a basement, there would be stairs in the home.

Paul is a drummer as well as a singer. Gemma reports band practice and rehearsals in the interview. Paul talks about a drum (leakage?) Does Paul own a drum kit? If that is his primary instrument, I would bet he does. Where would it be? I would take a guess, downstairs in their basement. I wonder if there a music room downstairs or if their basement open concept?

Where he begins the statement is important. They live in a bungalow, so everything is on one floor, yet he is vague about what he thinks Gemma was (probably - censors) doing. But he certainly places Ace with Gemma and does not say where Pearl was. What one does not report/say is sensitive. Both of them were in the process of getting up (each have a different way of “getting up” (not waking up)). Does he i.e., get up and go practice downstairs while Gemma snuggles in bed with the kids? (Order - band practice is mentioned before rehearsal.) He doesn’t say. He only says they "were both in the process of getting up"


"we were both in the process of getting up, Gem was prob …. I think Gem was changing or feeding Ace as far as I can recall and then she came ….. again burst in through the door,"

she came
again
[X]burst through the door

It doesn’t make sense to me that he would always have Rolla off of the lead outside, but it does make sense for him to always have Rolla off of the lead at home. Does she jump up on people?

Hypothetical - if Pearl came in to where Paul was practicing drums, (band practice,) and she went to go up the stairs, does it make sense that he would “command” her to stay on the bottom step for safety reasons? If Rolla was in the house, upstairs, would she be the kind of dog to burst through the door and jump up against whomever was at the top of the stairs?

To note, according to Paul, Rolla is not in the family home that morning. Paul said, "Jumped in the truck, off up to my mom’s to get Rolla my Boxer dog” No one asked him where "he" was going that morning (only what happened,) or where was the dog. But he had to tell us he went to his mom’s and why (to get his dog). So he is compelled to tell us the dog was not in the home.

Peter said, This not only introduces Rolla into the account of his daughter's death, but elevates Rolla in importance by the complete social introduction.

He is very close to his dog.

His dog is now part of "what happened" to the victim.


Could it be (paternal) protection?

The coroners report does not report any mauling. However, whatever befell Pearl, it had to do with “impact”. Would a dog bursting through a door up against a toddler (the result being her flying down the stairs backwards and bouncing off of the stairs,) have the same impact injuries as a brick wall falling on her? The coroner’s report could not conclude the result of Pearls injuries based on what Paul said happened. Moreover, there is no mention about Pearl being mauled.

jmo

Nic said...

"Jumped in the truck, off up to my mom’s to get Rolla my Boxer dog”

If a dog jumps up on you, what is the command? Off.

Interesting that:
jump
off
up
appear in the same sentence where/when Rolla, is mentioned. Rolla always heels, but what about other behaviour? Does she sit when told? Does she stay when told? Does she jump up on people when she is excited?

Habitually, when does Paul take the dog for her morning walk? Is it the same time every day?

Would seeing someone come up from the basement cause Rolla to burst out in excitement and jump up onto whoever was at the top of the stairs?

Mizzmarple said...

Bingo !
"On the floor" and "bedding" are in their words.

Mizzmarple said...

Correcting: these are their words in their statements.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't often comment on anonymous posts, but this one is interesting:

Anonymous said...
It is not uncommon for some men to not bond totally with children prior to walking, talking or being really interactive. Whether this was the case or not with Paul, he does come across as very self-involved. This very well could have been a freak accident, partially/completely due to Paul's negligence but his narcissistic inability to take any real responsibility leads him to deceptive statements, but not that he wanted Pearl to die.

As Peter mentioned, Paul is also about self-promotion, I don't think he planned Pearl's death, but he's trying to capitalize on it.
*******************************************************************************************************************


Although I disagree, the poster is following through with thought; which I respect. It allows for us to correct, adjust, and remain logical.

I disagree regarding bonding pre walking, but not for "men" but for in home biological dads. The poster may simply have been talking about men in general, in and out of the home.

Next, the deception is not caused by the (appropriately noted) narcissistic refusal to take responsibility. He is deceptive about "what happened" not "deceptive because of what happened."

Does this make sense? (anonymous). If not, I will attempt lengthier explanation.


As to dying in the house, doors, steps, etc:

We have to judge the quality of the language, even in small portions, in the "event" time period. With the stairs, and even with the dog, (including incomplete actions), he is in "narrative building"; that is, he is establishing what a good and caring, attentive and safety conscious father he is.

This suggest to the contrary. '

However, we do not read into something that is not there. This is where, in training, we teach the new analyst to trust the subject to guide us. Trust his words.

Where the story goes awkward, including time of death, is due to not working from experiential memory, but don't change the time frame.

The greater the respect for the subject to guide you, the more success you will have .


Peter


PS: there are some other excellent and sober comments here.

Although I don't always agree with them, at least engagement is made. I note that unlike facebook, only a few claimed "emotion" ("you are hurting Pearl right now!!!" comments were deleted. These attack motive, claim some form of faux moral or ethical supremacy, and seek to stop insight.







The click of the heeling dog may not be due to fear, but solid training. Dogs that fear will skulk over to the master's side. Looking at his personality, my guess is that he is better with his dog than his children, and perhaps better with pets than humans.

My dog does a sloppy heel and sloppy recall. It does not mean I love him more than others. It is just that I am a "ham and egger" in training. I could not pass a Schutzhund trial but the dog is, in comparison to the non professional world, well trained, protects on command and will recall enthusiastically. But when he comes to me, he sits sloppy and looks at me with betrayal in his eyes if I don't give up the tennis ball.

Peter Hyatt said...

PS: I think Pearl feared him. He is a loose cannon with a foul mouth. Little children don't prosper under that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon

I share your wievs on many of the remarks here - not everyone has understood the principles of SA. Stick to Peter Hyatt's analysis, nothing more.

That being said, I do understand why "your locals" want to be ananymous. Paul Black is a hangaround in Hell's Angels. It is a world wide, criminal and exstremely violent mafia organization. If they bond with anybody except for the kind of people the meet daily in their club houses it will only last until they have no use for them anymore.In my country they have shared the brothels with Bandidos and are known to be extremely vicious towards the women - no bonding there. They have shared the hashis market with bandidos (an estimated worth of $200+ million pr. year). Approx. one third of them are in jail at any point in time for anything from violence over drugdealing to murder.

Bingo said...

Self-promotion sending off red flags. Too much like Blackburn. He is def not as obvious but why would you be talking about the great cast and how well you know your lines. Just trying to capitalize on it? This was a fascinating statement analysis.

Nic said...

ima.grandma,

I don't think Paul let Gemma near Pearl at the wall. (He does report in subsequent articles at Gemma didn't know what happened, that he hadn't told her and he wanted to protect her from the gruesome details (why he was at the court house and Gemma was not). Gemma might not have known she was airlifted. They reported being in the police car and following the ambulance. It could be that Ace was in the ambulance and Pearl was airlifted.

More early reporting:

In a statement released by South Wales Police, they said: “Pearl was every single star in every single sky, she was as bright as the stars, when she looked at you with those eyes and she would melt your heart. She was the reddest pearl in the ocean and the sweetest melody ever written.

“She was the greatest dancer and she has left a massive hole in our hearts, the world will be a darker place without her.”

Read more at https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2017/08/07/world-a-darker-place-after-death-of-one-year-old-pearl-in-car-incident/#358S2SfLVcb2cBMf.99

___________________

The images of Paul carrying his daughter into the church and kissing the casket broke everyone’s hearts.

He said: "I don’t think I’ve ever been so proud of anyone or anything as I was of Pearl that day.

“Even in that little white casket I was proud of her. I’m still proud of her every day and I’ve learned to love her a little more. She was our superstar.

“I was the first one to pick her up, I was the first one to hold her and I wanted to be the last one to hold her.”

Gemma added: “I wanted to write the eulogy because I wanted it to be my words and Paul wanted to carry her.

“It needed superhuman strength from Paul that day.”

“I was so proud to carry her,” he said. “It wasn’t the girl I left with on that fateful Sunday morning. It wasn’t her in her little Peppa coat, her Peppa jeans and her Peppa wellies, it was a different little girl in that box. Pearl had gone then. Pearl had flown to wherever paradise is.

“It was tough but also one of the proudest moments of my life, but at the same turn the most horrific moment of my life.

“I’ll never feel pain, I’ll never feel hurt as much as I’m hurting now.

“No man should ever have to see that happen to his little girl in front of his very eyes. Nothing in my life will ever be as hard as this.”


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4795724/the-voice-star-paul-black-opens-up-about-his-daily-struggle-after-daughter-pearl-1-was-crushed-to-death-by-runaway-car/

Anonymous said...

I thought of the screaming and the child running based on something that happened to me as a child.

Back in the day of wall furnaces and flammable materials, I backed up to warm my hiney by the warm furnace. When I stepped away and started to walk across the room the awful-est screaming and yelling broke out. I thought I was in trouble and started to run. They came after me. I ran faster. They ran faster. I ran faster. Finally I was tackled and what seemed like being beaten to pulp.

Yep, you guessed it. I was on fire!

Anonymous said...

Scary indeed Peter!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9mATFIUYo0

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

She was the reddest pearl in the ocean

massive hole

I’ve learned to love her a little more

I was the first one to pick her up,
(someone would have to fall to be picked up)

He is being in context of the funeral, but he also refers to that fateful Sunday morning and provides a time when he left with her; but, the police report the time as 1:39pm when the accident happened/they responded.

“It wasn’t the girl I left with on that fateful Sunday morning. It wasn’t her in her little Peppa coat, her Peppa jeans and her Peppa wellies,...

Anonymous said...

Well, your Hell's Angels analogy spill water, imo.
Yes, he has several tattoos. However, his style of singing songs like they were show tunes would put him on the most likely to be their beotch in one of their club houses.
I'm not buying your rhetoric.

Tom Jones almost pressed the "I Want YOu" button. Paul is a talented singer. He is most likely a talented actor in his area, too. And, according to press coverage, he is a talented tattoo artist...of which I'd have no use.

He self-promotes just like most of you self-promote and attempt to inject yourselves in affairs that are not yours.

The issue I have with your analogies is you are the one displaying criminal opportunistic features when you attempt to attack and bring down someone that's already down.

You go so far as to claim he is involved in world-wide crime to make yourself seem more knowledgeable and expert like.

I don't know what SA would call that, but I call it buffoonery.

Lars Bak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hi anonymous

I think SA would quickly discern that my "attacs" were a guess about why "your locals" preferred to stay anonymous.

What Paul Black being a talented singer and has tatoos himself has to do with anything is beyond me.

Lucia D said...

That statement of "I've learned to love her a little more" is strange, but telling. He has "learned", as if loving his little girl did not come naturally to him, but had to be learned. And as if he didn't love her fully before she died, and doesn't fully love her even now, but just "a little more". An odd thing to say about a child who is gone. Perhaps leakage?

Ladela said...




Peter I posted as the anonymous you responded to.

Regarding bonding I was talking about some men in general but I think it can be said for some in-home bio dads too. Not the norm or majority, especially as much anymore, but still possible and something to consider. Paul was an in home bio dad and he did not appear to have deeply bonded with Pearl. His language (and behavior) indicates a narcissist.

I was positing another possibility. Not one I ultimately agreed with, just another possibility to consider when analyzing.

It was also in counter-point to comments proscribing premeditated death plans to Narcissist Paul outside the time frame he described in his statement samples; in a closet, the night before or morning of, etc. He might be criminally negligent and a yucky guy, but his language did not indicate premeditation in Pearl's death. Premeditation in his self-promotion in offered statements?? Heck yeah!!

It is probable he was not bonded, due to his narcissism (*or another reason) and/but did not intend her death. That was my point.



"He is deceptive about "what happened" not "deceptive because of what happened."

Yes it makes sense and you unpacked that far better than I did when I wrote my comment. I think he knows he was negligent, which resulted in Pearl's death, and as he cannot admit that to himself or others, he lied about what exactly happened. I hope I didn't just sloppily re-pack that! :)


I think the issue of trusting the subject, which ultimately requires you to trust yourself, is a fascinating concept.



Nic said...

Ladela said:

Paul was an in home bio dad and he did not appear to have deeply bonded with Pearl


What I read was that Paul and Gemma had been together for 12 years before they got married. They married before Pearl was born. Was Pearl "planned"? If he was not bonded to Pearl, could it be that "she" changed his rock-n-roll singer lifestyle?

Ladela siad:
It was also in counter-point to comments proscribing premeditated death plans to Narcissist Paul outside the time frame he described in his statement samples; in a closet, the night before or morning of, etc.


It is Paul who begins his statement in the morning - before he leaves for rehearsal. Paul says he left rehearsal "so early". Both agree that the routine was for Gemma and the kids to go to Gemma's parents for lunch on Sundays. That means, they should have left in the morning before lunch. But that day was "so unusual" (his words) whatever happened that was "so unusual", they did not go to Gemma’s parents. Gemma was emphatic about Pearl’s whereabouts: "she was never in Heolgerrig on a Sunday afternoon….She shouldn’t have been here. “

They did not have lunch (so Gemma said in the interview). There is no talk about anyone having lunch, only what usually happened or should have happened (Pearl "should have been having her Sunday dinner"). The only reference to eating is Gemma (probably) feeding Ace in the context of getting up.

Reports are (including from law enforcement who spoke with the media) the accident happened at 1:39PM. I'm presuming that is when the 999 call was made/the time is marked.

There are hours of time missing from when Paul left the rehearsal “so early” to when the 999 call was made. Here Paul said he left with her that morning ( “It wasn’t the girl I left with on that fateful Sunday morning.” https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4795724/the-voice-star-paul-black-opens-up-about-his-daily-struggle-after-daughter-pearl-1-was-crushed-to-death-by-runaway-car/)

So he left with her on Sunday morning, actually supposedly with both kids and the dog, on Sunday morning. He didn’t think they would need lunch? He is at the parks for hours with no stroller and a dog off leash. Did he have diapers? A bottle or pacifier for his son? Water for the dog? Poo bags for the dog? That’s a lot to juggle on foot with one kid in the arms, a dog of leash and a little girl “plodding along” to heel.

If at home, at 1:39PM, the kids should have been down for their naps. I know that sounds judgemental. But these are the facts as they have reported them.

Dawnabelle said...

This rings true for me. Language reveals everything. I love that.

My counselor used to tell me "you do the best you can with what you know now." I didn't know much and I have regrets. I started using "can't know" instead of "don't know" because it helps me differentiate between what I can learn (don't know) and what I don't have access to (can't know). I seek to learn what I don't know. I want the truth no matter how much it hurts. And it hurts.

Gemma is caught in a spiral of you can't wake up until you get distance and you can't get distance until you wake up.

I lived that. When I got out of it the pain was worse. I have little to no contact with people care about now. It is a project. My project. Get better. Be careful. Learn.

I don't know who's watching. It's important to to me to set a good example, and I will help anyone on this path any way I can.

ima.grandma said...

I appreciate the insightful comments made today.  Welcome Dawnabelle.

Thanks Nic, your thoughts surrounding the air ambulance are logical. 

I agree with your summarization of "Sunday morning" grounded in sound principles.

I did find one article containing unique info:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/runaway-car-crushes-toddler-as-it-rolls-down-hill-in-merthyr-tydfil-lkn6mjw9q

Snip
Pearl Melody Black was being taken to her grandparents by her father, along with Acer, her eight-month-old brother, when the incident happened on Sunday afternoon.

Both children from Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales were airlifted to hospital but doctors were unable to save Pearl.

The vehicle is believed to have been parked in a nearby driveway and is thought to have rolled down a hill after its handbrake failed. It demolished a garden wall and hit the family as they were walking past.

The family live in a semi-detached bungalow half a mile from the children’s grandparents.

The Range Rover Sport was taken away by police, who are investigating what caused it to roll down the hill. The vehicle had been parked next to the bungalow of Gillian Price, 53, a paramedic. Neighbours said Miss Price owns a Range Rover but it is not known whether the vehicle was hers.

Anonymous said...

Im confused as to why "the door" is not situated in space.
Instead, it conceals both Pauls location as well as Pearl's both before she bursts through the door and after.

I also find it curious the sensitivity in Pauls language surrounding how SMALL Pearl was:

"Pearl was to heel (inappropriate laughter)
" by my knee"
"she was a dot"
"she was just a little thing"

Does this not suggest at minumum a DOMINEERING ATTITUDE towards Pearl?

Anonymous said...

Its not "she was the cutest littlest thing"

Rather

"Pearl was to heel (hahaha)"
"by my knee"
"she was just a dot"
"she was just a little thing"

Anonymous said...

The stairs also make me uncomfortable.
The stairs are not situated in space either
Paul does not "the stairs in my Mums house" or the stairs leading upstairs
No.
In fact, Gemma interjects saying "she shouldnt have been here (at her home)????

Pauls verbs which relate to Pearl are concerning

"burst"
"to heel"
"snatched"
"drag"
"laid her on the floor"

Is there even ONE sentence dealing w Pauls interaction w Pearl that does NOT contain a violent verb?

Anonymous said...

Also

"couldnt throw"

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks to Peter, and the many insightful commenters!

I wonder if part of Paul's neglect, resentment and belittling of Pearl is because he apparently can't keep his beloved dog in the home?
(See my perfectly well-behaved dog? Why is he the one put out when the plodding "her" is the problem?)

One inconsistency jumps out repeatedly, even though I know there is sound logic behind it absent the many other red flags here:

Paul describes Pearl (i.e., "her") as dying instantly, or in his arms. The many officials report she died shortly after arriving at the hospital.

From several ride-alongs, I know that paramedics will sometimes transport an obviously deceased child so the reality of dying directly under a parent's watch isn't so horrific.

But that is usually infants who died at home with no obvious trauma, and I can't imagine the expense of an airlift with zero chance of survival, especially here, where an empty vehicle caused the death.

With his many inconsistencies, self-promotion and lack of bonding with Pearl I don't think that's the case here, but in fairness to the family I'd at least consider it.

I also can't get past Paul's "never been more proud" of his young daughter before her lying motionless in a casket.
That outshines her first word, first steps, first spontaneous expression of love, other milestones of that age?

Anonymous said...

I saw his Voice performance and found him intriguing. I think had the judges been able to view him, he would have won a spot. It's clear he truly loves performing. You can see it in his eyes. It is his life. That's what they look for on the X factor, when some win big that are clearly not as musically inclined as others; they are born performers. Showmanship.

Paul Black certainly has showmanship. He took a Van Halen song and made it appeal to all generations.

One little girl did "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" in a way that I liked much better than the original. Paul Black has that type of talent.

But I am a robot! said...

I'm also stuck on his description "Daddy's hand now, tight tight tight."

That's a great example of Peter's analysis of Paul's poor understanding of parenting his young children, along with his storytelling.
A 21-month-old girl's hand isn't going to hold the grown man's much-larger hand; he would be holding hers.

And he certainly wouldn't be relying on her being able to grip tightly to keep them together!

I'm a woman with medium-small hands compared to those of a man, and even when my neices were 8 they couldn't grip my hand, especially tight tight tight.

ima.grandma said...

PAUL:   And I said I had Ace, and I said I’m gonna walk him to the park 

Extra words, he goes off on a tangent that is out of sequence:
cause Rolla’s so well behaved, he’s he’s always off the lead and Sundays that one is relatively quiet anfd I’ve only got to click my fingers and he’s a well trained dog. My mom hasn’t got a gate on her house. The driveway just come up off on to the pavement from the main road, so like I say, Rolla was off the lead but to heel ..umm.. Pause
Back to story:

We have:: And I said I had Ace, and I said I’m gonna walk him to the park, I have Ace in my left arm and Pearl was walking again to heel  cuase she was , she was never one to run, she was only just, she hadn’t been long walking so, you know she was …

Where in Paul's story does he make reliable statement that he took Rolla to the park with Ace and Pearl? I am probably missing it but we may be too wrapped up in his ramblings about the dog.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Pauls dog was living at the Mums cause he abused it.

Nic said...

One half mile is a long way to walk his mom's on foot with a baby in hand, a plodding toddler and a dog off leash. It isn't in any of the reporting, but I wonder where his truck (that he supposedly drove in "off up" to his mom's, was parked. Does his truck have baby seats?

Dumb question, but is the wall in-between his mom's and the park? Because if not, then, what the heck?

Anonymous said...

The overarching visual image I get is an image either of Pearl at the bottom of basement stairs or in a well being lifted out of the well or being pulled out of water (drowning):

Burst through door

Went to climb up stairs
I said "No!"
She would usually sit on the first stair (this places her at the "bottom" of something)

She was just a dot (optically she is quite a distance from Paul) (in a well?)
I said "Daddy"s hand tight tight tight" (pulling a drowning person out of water, rescuing someone dangling from a high height, pulling someone out of a well?"

My head was lowered like this
I heard a noise

Wall snatched

I couldnt throw her...quick enough
I laid her on the floor (reminds me of a lifeguard lying a drowning victim on the ground to perform CPR)
She died instantly in my arms

Incident I had to drag her from (Reminds me of a lifeguard having to "drag" a drowning victim out of the water or pulling someone/dragging someone out of a well

I get the imagery of drowning or being pulled from a well (hole) in thr ground

Anonymous said...

"The sailboat looked like just a dot in the water"

Anonymous said...

Would drowning be definitive for cause of death by the coroner?

Anonymous said...

Oftentimes on a dock there are stairs that go into the water (ladder-type stairs).

Anonymous said...

I am stuck on the names...."Pearl" is a dot a tiny little THING." he treats her like an indigificant object. His wife is even a "GEM"!!!!!!!!

And BLACK. I noticed if you take the "B" out of "Black", you've got lack!!!! Pearl b lacking...she's lacking from the scene through his words!!!

Anonymous said...

WOW! Did anyone notice after his daughter was rubbed out and his son ACE was spared, he started a TATTOO REMOVAL BUSINESS!!!!! HE IS WICKED!!!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

where was Pauls Mum?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- I have a really dumb question. I know from reading here that we should be aware/alert when a subject uses different verb tenses. If I understand correctly, I thought that often indicates that that particular part of the statement is sensitive and usually not from experiential memory. How would you apply that to Paul in this case? Does it mean establishing if this is his baseline normal (the manner in which he regularly communicates)? How much (if any) would Paul's substance abuse play into his ability to communicate a sentence or his speech patterns? Would that affect him being unable to complete a sentence? His verb-tense usage, he's all over the place.

Speaking of the day: it was, we were, I was

The Conversation between Gemma and Paul about taking Pearl to the park:

PAUL: "I said to Gemma, “I’ll go to rehearsals and get her ready by the time we come back” and I’ll take her with me and we discuss what park and I said take her to the park (unintelligible) you know the big park or there’s a park just up from my mom’s there just at the top of main square. I went to rehearsals."

This sounds like they were arguing that morning- that Paul wanted to go to rehearsals and he told Gemma to take Pearl to the park.

Anonymous said...

Burst through door

Violent action
Home invasion
Invasion of privacy
Very concerning

Anonymous said...

Paul wants us to know hes a "tough guy"

HIT the Jack Daniels

Burst through door
I said NO!!!
Pearl was walking to heel (hahaha)
Click of my fingers
Screamed at
THREW ACE
GRABBED HER JACKET
COULDNT THROW HER
DIED
DRAGGED HER
PROUD OF HER FOR DYING

Anonymous said...

Gemma: "flood of tears on the floor"

She knows. Deep down she knows.

Anonymous said...

What's he obsessed with? His DOG, Rolla! What rolls along and kills Pearl in his story? A Rover! What's commonly called ROVER? A dog!!!

Anonymous said...

Peppa coat, Peppa wellies, peppa jeans...Wouldn't you like to be a peppa too?

Seriously, what is a peppa?

Anonymous said...

Flood of tears on the floor

Water reference

Burst through Door

Very disturbing violent door reference

Anonymous said...

This is becoming like a linguistic Rorschach Test.

Anonymous said...

I think its weird he says Peppa coat peppa wellies peppa jeans THE WORKS

Why?

Because it sounds like it is somehow for his gratification how she is dressed.

Anonymous said...

Is there one nonviolent verb like "I held her hand"?

tania cadogan said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would drowning be definitive for cause of death by the coroner?

January 10, 2018 at 5:35 PM


If Pearl had drowned there would be fluid in her lungs and the coroner would have noted it and put it in his autopsy report.
The parents would then have been arrested on suspicion of murder since a child does not drown in the middle of a dry road.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It looks like he has a black eye on his right eye in the Mack the Knife video.

Anonymous said...

I just watched him singing cry me a river and like I get that he tries to have an operatic voice, but I feel like he sings the wrong notes, and is off key...like it sucks.

Anonymous said...

He is so silly. He's like a glorified lounge singer. But at least they hit the right notes sometimes wtf he sucks so bad.

Anonymous said...

Nice! I love his tribute to Bowie! It's him kinda singing along with a Bowie tape lmao! He sings so many wrong notes...so suckish.

Also, notice the human skull replica? in the background...

ima.grandma said...

Anon -you know which one, yes, I'm talking to you- please tell me how any of your statements made today have relevance to the intelligent practice of SA. You might have confused this site with Facebook.

Anonymous said...

His tribute to Prince is barfworthy!

Anonymous said...

Yeah OK Ima, Im probably the only one who analyzed it right.

Anonymous said...

No worries. I;m sick and just chillin...figure I'd try to help u guys out with what energy I had. Off to watch KUWTK.

Anonymous said...

Scott is inviting another girl to Costa Rica and Kourtney is going to confront him...I don't think I've seen that one yet!

ima.grandma said...

Anon, thank you for responding., I appreciate your honesty in recognizing I'm talking to you. You've been here a very long time. I know you're learning and paying attention to peters teachings. You know the principles. I know you do. Please use your knowledge and contribute to make a difference. I've always heard you. You care. You want to participate as we all do. If you would take a breath before you hit the publish button, I feel you are confident enough to back up your thoughts by standing true to SA rules.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ima.grandma said...

Anon, then please disregard my comment. I wasn't patronizing you; but since you know what you are doing please inform this community how we can learn from you and your talent for solving FBI cases.

Okay, that was sarcastic. I'm sorry; but I was compassionately responding to you. Lesson learned, I won't do it again. Peace out!

Anonymous said...

sorry, it should say "not everything that he was SEEING" in my post at 10:55

Hey Jude said...

Replying to Ima Grandma @ Jan 9 4.39pm - (sort of, began that way, at least)

Ima - the baby died in August, that's like last week- Gemma is surely still in shock.  

Paul Black's claim for community support is excessive. 

Gemma and Paul prompt and affirm each other throughout the interview - they are united in guilt, for different reasons. it is natural for bereaved parents to live with guilt, and to cycle endlessly through all the what ifs, buts and maybes. Paul Black goes over the top in his need for, and claim, of ’support', particularly overdoing it by likening Pearl’s death to the 1960’s Aberfan Disaster, in which a hundred and sixteen children died when a coal tip collapsed and flooded their school with slurry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster

https://laurasiersema.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/thedisasterofaberfan_charlesnunn_thepolicereview_.pdf

__

PB: ….somebody actually compared it to Aberfan.

GB: My mother’s had um, phone calls, because my mother’s of that era - er phone calls from mothers of children

PB: That’s right, yeah

GB:  who were killed in the Aberfan disaster, they’ve rung her and said, “I can’t even imagine how you feel - we had each other, but this has happened to your little girl and you’re on your own” - you know, ‘cause she knows lots of - they’re the same age as my mother - the mothers who lost children in th-the disaster - and they’re like, you know, we can’t even imagine how you’re feeling.

—-

PB: ….somebody actually compared it to Aberfan.

When someone says ‘actually’, they are comparing two thoughts - it’s possible that Pearl’s death was not actually compared to Aberfan. 

I think it is scripted, and his mention of Aberfan is a prompt for what Gemma says. She speaks haltingly, and is not at ease with what she says. She almost says her mother knows lots of [the mothers?] - then opts to say they’re the same age as her mother.

That’s not to say the mothers didn't phone or say anything along those lines -  it’s the eagerness of Paul to mention it during an interview about the death of his own child which I find unexpected. For half a century the Aberfan community has been identified by the loss of its children - their support might be taken as a type of endorsement of, and association with, the Blacks, making them similarly ‘untouchable’ in their own terrible loss. The slurry took the children - the wall took Pearl. It is a psychological ploy for sympathy and for shared victim status with the parents of Aberfan, which should be unnecessary. Pearl’s death, while tragic, is not like Aberfan, beyond that it also was preventable.

Hey Jude said...

Pearl, bless her, is said to have become ‘every star in every sky’, which surely, albeit metaphorically, extinguishes the ability of any other departed child to also shine as a star. It says something about her father's selfishness and ego - though the stars are countless, he claims them all, without thought to the many already shining for others, including the children of Aberfan.

Sounds harsh - but their baby died and he hasn't said, really,  how.

Hey Jude said...

Ima - he didn't say he took them to the park - he said Pearl wanted to go to the park, and to the play writer, that he wanted to take Pearl to the park, but nowhere did he say that he took them. Or reliably, that he went to his mother's house. He also didn't say he saw the wall fall on Pearl.

Hey Jude said...

Nic - if he was going to the park up above his mother's house, the. The wall was between them, yes. He didn't say he went to his mother's house, or to the park. He created the impression - the pronouns are missing for where he jumped in the truck and went to his mother's.

Hey Jude said...

His Halloween YouTube skit on the scene. from The Omen, where the 666 is found on Damon's scalp might explain why he felt the need to say he was proud of Pearl, and had never been so proud of her, etc, at her funeral - possibly as guilt/compensation for having made the video. It's doubtful everyone would have appreciated his dark sense of humour. He also did one in which he is the 'Werewolf of Merthyr'. In the Halloween video, he's dressed in black, face painted - it's Pearl's first halloween, and she is lying on a bed on a skull patterned throw, in a skeleton outfit. He strokes her head, uncovers '666' on her scalp, and says, 'I'm so proud of her.' The video is entitled, 'Proud of Pearl on her first Halloween. I knew it.'

I wondered if he might be 'overwriting' the video, in his mind, with a new one, in which he is more appropriately proud of her appearance - unfortunately the next occasion which remained for another expression of public pride in Pearl's appearance was her funeral. Subsequently, in the interview, he mentions the Peppa outfit, also as with pride - "the works". - (as in 'she had the whole works", sort of thing. Peppa Pig is a cartoon character popular with toddlers, for the person who asked.

Hey Jude said...

*Damian* ^

Hey Jude said...

It may have weighed heavy on him that he made that video (with over two hundred views, probably by family and friends) - because Pearl has died. He may wish he had uploaded a different type of video - of her in her Peppa outfit, playing in the park, or whatever, rather than that one, or as well as that one. That's how I would feel, anyway.

Nic said...

Hey Jude said,
it’s the eagerness of Paul to mention it during an interview about the death of his own child which I find unexpected.


It also reflects his awareness of tragic news stories and how long they can loop on the newswire. Ergo how long his name is in the news - because his name appears first in every news story I’ve read. I wish the media would only talk about Pearl and skip mentioning whose child she was.

Further to his “Warewolf in Merthyr” video spoof. You and I see things a little differently here. The opening scene was a moon. His reference about how he felt about Pearl saying “daddy swing, daddy park,” was comparable to “over the moon”. Moon (sight and reference) happens at the beginning of both promotional video and that interview. I can’t help but wonder if the reference to moon in the interview is about "his" on-camera awareness.

But I am a robot! said...

Referencing ima.grandma:

PAUL: And I said I had Ace, and I said I’m gonna walk him to the park
~~~

Peter and/or SA veterans, attaching the "I told" and the "As I said" prefixes obviously is intended to muffle lies into technically truthful statements.

However, does this lessen the internal stress of avoiding a direct lie, or add to it? It brings back the dropped pronouns out of necessity, even making it be singular, but it's still a few extra words to remember and choose in those milliseconds.
~~~~~

Hey Jude, you're correct that "actually" often compares two thoughts, but in this context, Paul saying "people actually compared it to" the horrific Aberfan tragedy, it's more a way of highlighting the statement's significance, like saying, "wait'll you hear this part," or, "here's the kicker," or misusing the word "literally" to add emphasis.

I know the Blacks are over there with you, but in America, particularly among younger people it's almost a speech affect such as randomly adding "like" throughout a sentence or thought.

And thanks; I've been clueless on who or what is Peppa and just inferred it must be a current hot brand.

Peppa Pig being a beloved children's character puts it more into Peter's assessment of Paul trying to prove his great dad image, and not a shallow fixation on brand names and fashion.

Still clueless on "wellies" but it reads here like some sort of rain boots?



Nic said...

Hey Jude said...
Nic - if he was going to the park up above his mother's house, the. The wall was between them, yes. He didn't say he went to his mother's house, or to the park. He created the impression - the pronouns are missing for where he jumped in the truck and went to his mother’s.


I agree. I was just wondering where his mother’s house was in proximity because not much of his statement is reliable. Even the time stamp seems off (going to the park in the morning but the 999 call stamps at 1:39pm when the kids would have had their lunch and been down for their naps. At least one of them.

I was wondering if the wall came before his mum’s place, therefore between Pearl’s place and the park/grandma's. If on foot, then okay, they would pass it to and from. If in the truck (note “if”) then they would have passed it, there and back, and there would be no opportunity for the wall to fall on Pearl.

I don’t know what the point of his mom’s place was except to say what Pearl’s “step training” was there, sit on the bottom step and tap the drum. Based on the way he tells the story, telling Pearl “no” (about going up the stairs) could have occurred any day.

jmo

Nic said...

Anonymous said,
Still clueless on "wellies" but it reads here like some sort of rain boots?


Exactly. And umbrella = brolly

Anonymous said...

What are you guys talking about regarding the movie The Omen/Damian 666 etc?

Why did Paul call Pearl "infamous" and say he was proud of her for dying bc she was "no longer the same girl"?

Anonymous said...

In one of the Omen movies, Damien goes to the zoo & the animals flee from him bc they sense how "evil" he is.

Does Paul have mental problems?

Hey Jude said...

I didn't watch the Werewolf of Merthyr video, I watched the one called 'Proud of Pearl on her first Halloween.' and the ones of him singing - the Voice audition, and Mack the Knife - I think he has a good voice and is a good performer, but his age is not on his side to make it as a big name artist.

-
'Wellies' are wellingtons, rain boots, yes.

--

Anon, you can find the video on his YouTube channel. it is a skit on the scene where the number 666 is found in the scalp of Damian - Halloween type humour is intended.



Hey Jude said...

I think people who command their kids to heel, sit, etc, as though they were training a dog, and people who swear on their children's lives have much in common, and it's not good. Tina Malone is a great entertainer (UK Shameless), but sometimes an actor or actress is cast not because much acting is required, more a role fits naturally.

Werewolves are a strange interest. I grew up terrified of werewolves, and sometimes of a relative who commanded his son as though he were a dog, and who frequently swore upon his children's lives, and to God, and on his mother's life. I don't know what caused him to choose one over the other - perhaps the extent of the lie influenced his choice. Sometimes that we have a bias against the subject of an analysis is inavoidable.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for pointing that out, But I Am A Robot - I will read up more about 'actually' and hope to get it right another time.

Anonymous said...

Paul does not hit the right notes when he sings so how is he a hood singer?

Anonymous said...

I used to watch the Omen movies w my friend when we would skip school.
Doesnt Damien "burst through a door" when he is riding his Big Wheel indoors and his "evil" is starting to become apparent?

Anonymous said...

Google "youtube Damien Church Scene". Look how Damians father has a white corsage pinned to his suit. Just like Paul at the funeral except his was pink. Is that not strange?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, should say "The Omen Church Scene"

I watched a few other clips & it seems Damien causes many people tp have "accidents" that kill them.

Hey Jude said...

Damian rides his tricycle into the small table on which his mother is standing to arrange a hanging basket - she falls over the balcony, to which she manages to cling helplessly for a few seconds, pleading with Damian, who is about four, to help her. He watches as his mother loses her hold and crashes onto the hall floor. No wonder he grew up such a mess, poor kid, being dragged to church, watching his mother die, guilt-tripping him on the way. I don't think he rode his tricycle through a door. Damian is irrelevant to this subject, btw.

---

No, it's not strange about the corsage. Mourners sometimes wear pink ties and/or buttonholes to girls' funerals.

Anonymous said...

Whatever. I don't believe Paul's story. Unfortunately I will have to disagree with Peter on this case (Ive only disagreed with him I think one other time), because a huge section of Paul's story is unreliable...Peter wants us to follow Paul's, words but they only lead so far (not very far at all) and then hit a brick wall where you can't follow him any further. I would not want to have to analyze this case if I were in Peter's shoes, how do you call these parents liars without feeling awful, and understandably he is going to feel soft-hearted towards the mourning parents of a 1 year old girl who supposedly died in a freak accident.

Nic said...

Peter said:
I read a public post in which the subject called the victim "infamous."


Well that is not good. In actuality there is a negative connotation associated with the label "infamous".

In the end, is Pearl "famous" because she died. She was the victim.

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

Anonymous said:
Unfortunately I will have to disagree with Peter on this case (Ive only disagreed with him I think one other time), because a huge section of Paul's story is unreliable...

Peter said,
Analysis Conclusion:

The child died via accidental death. It was not intentional.

The subject is deceptive about what led to her death.

It is likely that Pearl did not "heel" at the "snap of his fingers" the way his dog did, and did the very thing she "never" did: ran ahead.

Child Neglect is indicated.

____________________

I'm not sure what you disagree with. Even the coroner's report will not corroborate Paul's story. To me that means that what Paul reports versus the analysis (not just of the subject's statements, but the results of Pearl's autopsy,) does not jive.

Both the coroner and Peter agree that the subject's story and the outcome (how Pearl died) do not add up. How is it you disagree?

Anonymous said...

@1122,

I disagree in this way: I don't believe it was accidental. I don't believe that Paul's dog ran ahead, Paul turned his head and then a wall fell on Pearl or whatever people are suggesting that indicates "child neglect". Frankly, I think it's absurd that people are getting sucked that far into his lie, when, linguistically, I CANNOT allow him to take me out of their home and with him on his journey to his Mums or on his little walk because linguistically it is not reliable, linguistically it does not reflect someone describing an authentic experience ie. one that actually happened!

Mizzmarple said...

Agree it is very strange.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - one thing I noticed was that neither parent said anything like 'it was a normal day' - which might be expected if they had been trying to persuade that it was a normal day when they knew, or had knowledge that it would not be just like any other day. On the contrary, both parents say the opposite - Paul said it was 'strange' because he never left rehearsals early, Gemma said that normally Pearl wouldn't have been there - she should have been having her Sunday dinner at her grandmother's house. So, is that a minus against Pearl's death being deliberately caused or intended? I think it is a minus.

Buckley said...

Good point Jude- I think it speaks to blaming fate instead of something else; it's in his many examples of sensitivity around "having everything under control" that tells us the something else is his parental naivety and inattentiveness. Remember, he didn't cause the accident, but should have been more safe so he could have prevented it.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, You make a good point, and it's *****weird***** cause before I read you post I was thinking about that very thing today regarding the case. The fact they are stating it was "strange", "so unusual" etc and not saying "it was a normal day".

Here is something I've noticed: When someone commits homicide etc in "the heat of the moment" or in an unplanned way, I believe they follow the "it was a normal day" rule. However, when someone premeditates something, for example, it neednt be homocide, it could be for example some type of robbery that is premeditated and carefully laid out and perhaps takes days (let's say it was people trying to break into a museum to steal millions of dollars of art or for example, Kim Kardashians robbers were following her for 2 years and had planned to rob her when she was in Paris a year before she was actually robbed but kanye was there so that scared them off), so something where it is a calculated, carefully planned out crime, you are going to hear the "it was weird" "it was unusual", etc.

Picture it: Let's say a group is planning to break into a museum and steal millions of dollars of art. Weeks before they plan to break in, they send one of their group to scope out the place, the alarms, cameras etc during lunch hour. After the robbery, the cops manage to catch that guy based on his appearance that day which was caught on camera. He is in the interrogation room and they are asking him why he was there that day at lunch hour,

Cops: You were caught on camera around noon 3 weeks ago taking pictures of alarms and cameras in the museum. Why were you there?

Thief: Well, you know, it was my lunch hour at work, and typically I just eat at my desk, but it was *****so unusual***** that day, an old friend I hadn't talked to in years emailed me out of the blue and asked me if I would meet her at the art museum to eat there. It was *****really strange**** to hear from her after so long, but I had great memories of our time together at college, so I agreed to meet her to catch up. While I was waiting for her, I got bored and was just taking some pictures.

Anonymous said...

Spontaneous/Unplanned HOmicide: Perp will say what a "normal" day it was

Planned, Premeditated Homicide: Perp will say how certain events that day were so unusual, so strange etc.

Anonymous said...

Consider the Ramsey case, where Patsy premeditated JonBenet's murder and wrote the note before the killing....didn't Patsy say that it was "so strange" that a few weeks before when she received the doll that she had had made to look like JonBenet, that she pictured the doll in a coffin. Hence, she is trying to say it was an "omen". Doesn't she use "it was so strange, it was so unusual" other times?

That's because she premeditated the killing!

Anonymous said...

So weird, I was talking with someone about politics and pulled up the Hillary Superpredator Comment youtube video, and Hillary says that "first they need to bring (the superpredator gang members) "to heel"!!!!

So, in this context "to heel" is being used to mean "to stop a very bad person from doing bad things"...it certainly does not seem to have a benign meaning.

Hey Jude said...

Thank you, Buckley, and Anon, for the comments on 'normal' and similar - that's a lot to think about.

---

Other Anon - babies shouldn't be expected to walk to heel, or compared to dogs.

I don't know what the reference to Hillary is about, but the person controlling the dog is also the one who commands it to heel.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter Hyatt said...

Regarding those who feared Paul Black's fans, the deleted comments show them to be rational based.

Peter

Anonymous said...

To the person who deleted their comments before Peter came on and saw the 4 remaining comments, you are a scumbag. Peter has mo context to understand the comments. It was a "conversation" between 2 people, one of whom was insulting the other telling them
how inane and idiotic their ideas about Paul Black being a liar was. The person started making fun of the anti Paul Black poster saying they were as stupid as the Kardashians, posting DISGUSTING comments that were deleted before came on. That other poster is a horrendous who deleted all their comments so that Peyer would have no context to underdtand or even know that it was an argument between 2 people!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Real nice. The coward deleted his portion of the comments before Peter came on, including the one that said that I was like "Buffalo Bill" combined with a disgusting slur to which I defended myself!!!!

Lucia D said...

I think if the option to post as anonymous was taken away, there would be far less drama here. Posting under a pseudonym is fine, if the individual is limited to that pseudonym. To all you Anons, why not just use some ID so we can follow who is who?

Anonymous said...

Lucia, The drama was caused by an incredibly disturbed commenter who insulted me, called me names, idiotically compared me to "Buffalo Bill" (someone he probably secretly lusts for), insulted the Kardashians, claimed moral superioty to them which is disgusting since he is a terrible person! He then deleted all hos comments before Peter came on!!!! He also did compliment Paul Blacks singing even though the guy cant hit any notes!

Habundia said...

Lucia D that would be a good start of 2018, people can be anonymous with a psuedonym to. There is enough drama in the world without these anonymous posters.

Anonymous said...

I don't think an anonymous poster can delete her or his own comments. If I can delete this after posting, I will.

But I am a robot! said...

To the random Anonymous No. 35665433677 pointing out Hillary's use of "brought to heel" in reference to a violent criminal:

Even in this context it has nothing to do with violence or criminality; she's saying "brought under control" the same as the heel command controls the dog; i.e., brought to justice.

So many words in the English language have multiple meanings -- if someone tells you an object is 15 yards away, obviously they mean 15 x 36 inches, not 15 front lawns worth of distance.

However, heel in the dog-training context and Hillary's reference both mean a method of control unrelated to the nature of the subject under control.

Anonymous said...

But Im a robot,

Yes I understand it means "to get under control", but the implication is that the subject is "wild" and potentially dangerous & needs strict or harsh discipline to bring them back under control.

A boxer dog-those are big dogs which seem scary when they start barking/chasing even though they areisually sweet dogs.

"Superpredator" gang members are scary & dangerous.

He uses "to heel" to refer to a 1 yr old girl. Is that not odd? And then he laughs, and he laughs even in the context of her dying like a minute later in the story?!

Why is a grown man using "to heel" to refer to a 1 yr old girl who had just started walking.

It is a red flag.
It is NOT expected or normal!