Thursday, February 8, 2018

Nathan Carman Issues Denial

Nathan Carmen went boating with his mother and later reported her lost at sea.

Prior to this, Nathan lost his grandfather to a shooting, in which he was a "person of interest" but not formally charged.

When his grandfather died, he left a reported $40 million dollars to his four daughters.  When his mother died, Nathan Carman was her sole heir.

He has issued a statement.  Let's look at the statement and compare it to the analysis.

I.  News Article & Statement of Denial 
II. Analysis of Boating Accident Call

I. News Article and Denial 

Nathan Carman has been called a suspect in the 2013 shooting death of 87-year-old real estate developer John Chakalos in Windsor, Connecticut. No one has been arrested. He also has been questioned about the day his boat sank with his mother, Linda Carman, aboard near Rhode Island in 2016. She is presumed dead. He was rescued a week later, after being found floating on a life raft in the Atlantic Ocean.

Carman, who lives in Vernon, Vermont, has denied any involvement in either case.

In July, his mother's three sisters filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire accusing him of killing Chakalos and possibly his mother. They have asked a judge to block him from collecting money from his grandfather's estate. Chakalos left more than $29 million to his four daughters, and $7 million of that money could go to Nathan Carman.

He released this statement: 

"I did not kill my grandfather or my mother, nor did I engage in the violent behavior in my childhood that has been reported.
It is my aunts who are being driven by malice and greed to make the vexatious, false, and insupportable allegations which form the basis of their probate lawsuit in New Hampshire,"

A reliable denial is spoken in the "Free Editing Process", that is, when one is freely speaking.  Although we analyze written statements, the greatest reliability is found when one is freely speaking, choosing his own words, of which we classify as 


This is why we carefully choose our wording in interviewing, using legally sound, open ended questions, such as:

"What happened?" followed by 

"What happened, next?"

This allows the subject, adult, child or adult with Aspergers, to choose their own words, their own verb tenses, pronouns, and order of speech. 

This denial comes after 2 years of being incapable of saying these very words during interviews.  It begins very strongly, but as reported in media:  it was a prepared statement and he refused to answer questions about it.  This follows suit of the 20/20 interview in which he also refused to allow the Interviewer to ask specific questions that would implicate him in the death of his mother. 
In spite of the additions to the denial, had this been spoken two years ago, freely, it would have been strong.  

He denies the deaths and he denies news reports (and statements made by witnesses) of childhood violence. This is to expand on component number three:  the allegation specifically addressed. 

Yet, he continued to add to the denial: 

He moves to assign motive to others.  We must always be on alert for projection in such cases.  

Note the motive:  greed.  

Note also the impressive vocabulary of Carman. 

As seen in the interview:  He is very intelligent. He has also very likely done online research extensively. 

Carman spoke for one of the first times since the lawsuit linking him to the disappearance of his grandfather and mother was filed. Beyond the comments in his one-page statement sent to The Associated Press, Carman refused to answer any questions.

He avoided entering the Free Editing Process 

Dan Small, an attorney representing the sisters, accused Carman of being "fixated on money" and said the Chakalos family only wanted "justice."

Small said in a statement the family has made it clear that if they win the case, "the proceeds that Linda would receive would be donated to charity in her name."  This is used to counter Nathan's assignment of motive. 

Carman said he was also firing his two attorneys in the New Hampshire case, Hubert Santos and Richard Thorner. He accused them of lacking basic competence and the time needed to devote the case. He also said he was worried they could not ensure the best outcome.
Carman said he would represent himself until he finds new attorneys.

"I plan to aggressively pursue all legal avenues available to me for rectifying the injustices which have already been perpetrated and obtaining a just outcome in the matters that are ongoing," he said.

Santos' law offices confirmed he is no longer involved in Carman's case in New Hampshire, nor the criminal investigation in Connecticut into the death of Carman's grandfather. Thorner did not respond to requests for comment.

Carman is fighting several legal battles. Along with the New Hampshire case, Carman and the insurer for his boat, the Chicken Pox, are fighting over his insurance claim in a Rhode Island court.
In December, National Liability & Fire Insurance asked a federal judge to force Carman to discuss what happened to a missing Sig Sauer .308-caliber semi-automatic rifle that he owned and matches the caliber used to kill his grandfather. Carman must also turn over 2016 phone records from Sept. 1 through Sept. 25, the day he was rescued.

The insurance company is seeking to avoid payment on an $85,000 policy for the boat Carman was on when he and his mother went missing at sea.

II.  Analysis 

This is from October, 2016

This past fall, in  watching interviews of Nathan Carman while filming ABC's "20/20", he showed a strong command of facts and was clear in his motive.  

I.               Transcripts
II.             Transcripts with Analysis
III.           Conclusion 

I.               Transcripts  

NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman.  
CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  “yes I hear you” 

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”

NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom, were fishing at Block Canyon.  And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment, I looked and saw a lot of water. I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel I brought up the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat’s (or just)  dropped out from under my feet.  Uh, when I saw the life raft I did not see my mom. Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  “No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet.  

NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her. 

CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon.  

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?) 

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.

II.            Transcripts with Analysis 

For those considering training:  please consider that his is a brief and basis statement analysis of the transcript for a single purpose of discerning truth or deception.  Content Analysis done upon the statement, along with the emerged psycho-linguistic profile is separate.  The analysis is done to answer the Analytical Question  

NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman.  
CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston, Ok

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  “yes I hear you” 

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”

This is our most important question, “What happened?”

We consider that with Asperger’s there may be a reduction in emotional language, but often within the language is logic; sometimes a very strong intellect propelled by logic.  We expect him to tell us immediately, what happened, with only a brief introduction, such as, "My mom and I went fishing, and we had an accident, and..." 

NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom, 

Here we have an emphasis upon being only two persons present for the event.  With the emphasis, we should consider the possibility of a third person on the mind of the subject.  This could be an eye witness, or someone who may known him well.  His need to emphasize is not due to Asperger’s, as there is no repetitive language following this.  

Note that it is unnecessary for him to clarify that the two “people” were “myself and my mom” here.  “Mom” is “my mom” while going out fishing which shows he viewed her positively at this time (while fishing).  “Mom”, repeated, increases the sensitivity.  

Regardless, he is, in the least, thinking of a third person, whether it be an eye witness, or someone important to him.  

The order changes which means change of priority.  “Mom and I” to “myself and my mom”, changing the order. 

were fishing at Block Canyon. 

He begins with the (1) people, (2) activity and (3) location rather than “My mom fell overboard…” or anything like it.  “We had an accident…” or any direct answer would have been expected, but is not here.  
The introduction is ‘slow’ in pace, which suggests that he does not want to get to ‘what happened’.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements are heavily weighted in the introduction.  The deceptive part of the ‘story’ is stressful, therefore, the subject often avoids going directly to it.  We measure the ‘pace’ of an account and note that this one, in particularly, is very slow.  

 And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment,

“And” :  There was a pause between sentences.  “And” when at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.  The slow pace continues, avoiding getting to the direct information about what happened to the missing person.  This is often associated with psychological guilt; not always guilt meaning remorse, but fear of being caught.  

“There was a funny noise”  

This is reported in passive voice.  Passivity is used appropriately when one does not know the source, but it is also used to conceal responsibility.  What is concerning here is the combination of the passivity with the descriptive term:  “funny noise.”

He describes the noise as “funny” while using passivity.  This will cause us to ask if he caused this “funny” noise.  He does not report an emergency, nor something out of control.  The passivity would be expected with an explosion, not a “funny noise.”

He is likely telling the truth about hearing the noise, but he may have caused what happened to make the noise, while avoiding telling us the source of the noise, or what made it "funny" to him.  

 I looked and saw a lot of water. 

He does not say “I saw a lot of water”, but he “looked” first.  This is akin to story telling and it continues to slow down the pace.  He does not tell us where he looked, or what he looked at.  This, too, is akin to story telling and indicates he is withholding information.  He did not say “I looked at the noise”, but that he “looked” and saw “a lot of water”, not an engine issue.  

This is two separate actions in his description.  It also avoids telling us what caused him to see a lot of water (note the passivity previously).  This separate action (in writing) further suggests that he caused the “funny noise” to have happened.  If so, we should expect more passivity in his language, which would remove him from the responsibility.    

He does not say that the noise caused water to fill up.  A “lot of water” may be his mother overboard.  Why was the noise “funny”?  Was it the sound of ‘gurgling’ or drowning?

This appears to be when he was looking outside the boat, where there is a lot of water.  Did he watch her drown or struggle? 

I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel 

Self censoring is when one stops himself, mid sentence.  The audio is difficult but he may have stopped himself here. 
He does not say “I brought”,  but “I was bringing” which shows ongoing action, (lengthening time)  rather than a single, ended action.   He soon will use the complete past tense, “I brought” below, so it is not his pattern or habit.  

Note “the reel” is not “a reel” and since he has not introduced a reel, it may be that they did not actually fish as this point, but something else took place.  

We may consider that his mother may have been impacted by the line; controlled by him, her neck, etc.  

I brought the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat just dropped out from under my feet.

These are two separate actions. One is complete while the other is ‘on going’ or lengthening of time.  This is another indicator of missing information in his answer. 

I brought the safety stuff forward” is a complete action.  This, while there was “a lot of water”; yet, he then goes to another activity in which there is no completion, but an elongation of time with “I was bringing…”  In this part of his statement, his mother is missing.  He does not mention her here, and it is likely that she was already in the water.  

The focus:  He only brought “one” of the safety bags.  This may show intention to save his own life knowing there was no intention on saving two lives; the “two people” he began his statement with.   He did not bring “safety bags” but only one

Regarding the “boat just dropped out from my feet” the audio is not clear, but it is, also, passive voice.  
  We must consider that he knew the cause of the event. 

 Uhwhen I saw the life raft I did not see my mom.

Here, he speaks to time, not an event. He does not say “I saw the life raft” but “when”, which focuses upon time, not action.  This, too, suggests missing information.   
He reports not when he got to the life raft, but when he ‘saw’ it.  He reports what he did not see. 

Negation:  Truthful people tell us what happened, what they saw, what they heard, etc.  In an open statement, when one tells us what they did not see, we must be on alert for deception.  He does not say he looked for her, only that he did not see her.  

 Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  “No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet.  

He offers no concern for her safety.  Even with Asperger’s there should be an element of concern, perhaps with low emotional wording.  Instead, the focus is upon “I” and he continues about himself:  

NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her.  

Here we have deception.  He addresses the element of time, which speaks to planning: “after” he got his “bearings.”  He wants us to believe he did not have his bearings, but this is not what he said.  “After I got my bearings” presupposes the loss thereof, but this is akin to story telling, not reliving a traumatic event from experiential memory. 

“Bearings” speaks to disorientation, and its location in the account is “logical”, which, in analysis, is likely to be artificial placement of emotions for the purpose of story telling.  It takes time to process emotions and here, even with Asperger’s, it appears to be edited into his account.  

He did not look for her.  He looked “around.”  Consider also the size of the boat with this expression.  

He wishes to be seen as someone who did “search” with “whistling, calling, and looking around” specifically, but it is not accurately stated.  

This, too, suggests that he has a need to be seen in a favorable light; something associated with guilt.  

CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon.  

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

This indicates he has the coordinates, just not the “exact” coordinates. 

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?) 

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.

III.          Analysis Conclusion

                               Deception Indicated

Nathan Carman is deliberately withholding information about what happened to his mother.  

He does not truthfully report events, skips over time, and shows a focus upon himself, rather than his mother.  

His wording reveals specific delay, associated with guilty knowledge, and it reveals intent.  

The form of his answer shows a lengthy introduction, statistically linked with deception.  

In order to be categorized as "deception indicated", intent must be seen.  Simply being in error, or mixed up, due to dehydration, health, trauma, etc, will not reveal "intent to deceive" in language.  In order to deceive, one must intentionally seek to mislead the interviewer/audience.  It is within this intention that we discern truth from deception.  

If Mr. Carman is offered a polygraph and the polygraph is conducted using his own language, he is not likely to pass.  

The interview strategy should consist of his own wording, and focus upon the gaps of time; not heavily upon the relationship with his mother, due to Asperger's.  He should be asked only general questions about her but if permitted opportunity to speak, will likely address her.  The interviewer must carefully listen for subtle disparagement of his mother.  This is something that guilty parties use to justify their actions.  This may even include a subtle blaming of the mother for her death.  

Nathan Carman is judicially innocent in this case, and in the unsolved murder of his grandfather.   

Several years ago, his wealthy grandmother died of cancer.  Shortly after this, his grandfather was murdered, leaving an estimated $40,000,000 to his four daughters; one of whom is Nathan's now deceased mother.  

Nathan was suspected but not charged in his grandfather's murder.  

Was this classification justified?

Did Nathan Carman commit murder against his grandfather and now his mother?

He spoke to media about his grandfather's death; denying involvement.  

For Statement Analysis:  What is the classification of his denial?

When one speaks publicly, there is a presupposition that the audience is free to believe him, or not to believe him.   

Up next:  Did Nathan Carman reliably deny killing his grandfather?

For training in detecting deception, contact us for

                           Detecting Deception here.   

We offer training for law enforcement, human resources, journalists, social workers and all those interested in detecting deception at a high level.  

It is, for investigators, a most necessary element that saves time and procures justice, while bringing traction to the law enforcement professional's career.  


tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Locked hand-in-hand like any loved-up young couple, model Chloe Ayling and her alleged kidnapper are captured in astonishing CCTV images filmed the day before she was set free.

A court was shown the footage of the glamour model, 20, walking alongside Polish man, Lukasz Herba, 30, during a shopping trip to the mountain resort of Viu in northern Italy five days into her alleged kidnap.

The very next morning the glamour model told police and British Consulate staff in Milan she had been abducted from a fake fashion shoot in Italy.

Pictures were shown to an Italian court as jurors were also told that the pair had been in touch on Facebook since 2015.

Herba is accused of snatching and drugging Chloe, stuffing her in a black bag and holding her captive in a mountain hideout while claiming to be 'a mid-level hitman' with a dark web mafia called Black Death.

Chloe turned up to a fashion shoot in Milan last July but was instead injected with ketamine, stripped, photographed and advertised online to be auctioned for Middle-Eastern buyers, the court heard.

But doubts arose about Chloe’s story after it emerged that she went shoe shopping with Herba despite telling police she had never left her mountain prison. She also shared a bed with Herba.

Commenting on the new footage, Chloe’s lawyer Francesco Pesce claimed she was under duress: "You can tell she is not happy to be holding his hand.

Herba’s computer records showed that Chloe accepted his Facebook friendship request, in March 2015, and the next month sent Herba two messages.

Court documents prepared by police computer experts said they couldn’t find any chats or messages with Chloe ‘but very probably Lukasz Herba deleted them as there are various black holes in the timeline of his profile’.

Computer records showed that Herba, who had 11 different email addresses and tried to set up a Big Coin exchange in 2015, had repeatedly searched for words like Chloe Ayling, Black Death, sex-trafficking and ketamine online.

Police said Herba was even researching how to make deadly nerve agent ricin. The terrifying biological weapon killed 12 people in an attack in the Tokyo Metro in 1995.

Police forensic analyst Alessandro Granziera said: "We found searches for a number of sites that explain how to how to extract pure ricin. He also wrote two emails to one of these sites asking about production, asking for information about what kind of gloves to wear, how to distill and handle ricin."

He later rang his mother from prison to tell her how to delete the emails, the court heard.

Computer records also suggested there could be more victims. One folder contained Black Death web pages created over several years, with different girls auctioned.

"The thing that changed was the girl they were selling, the name, the amount and the pictures," Granziera added.

But police were not sure that the auctions and women were real. There were some seemingly real replies asking to take part in the auction for Chloe the court heard.

Italian prosecutors maintain that the kidnap was not a publicity stunt and that Chloe was the innocent victim of physical and psychological violence. Senior police woman Serena Ferrari told the court the kidnap was a crime ‘of enormous gravity'.

The trial is adjourned until later this month.

"She was probably just trying to keep him calm."

Lucia D said...

What a story! I am shocked by people who murder more than one family member, but it happens.

ima.grandma said...

September 28, 2016
"He loved me very dearly," Nathan Carman said of John Chakalos. "I was like a son to him; he was like a father to me."

Clark Carman, Nathan's father, said he was shocked that his son was considered a suspect in the death of his grandfather.

"He was a suspect because he was the last one to see my father-in-law alive," he said. "The kid was so devoted to him. There were only two people in his life, his mother and his grandfather. There was no motive. There was nothing to gain with John dying, he had everything to lose. He's not the type of individual who's aggressive. He'd walk away from a situation rather than attack. Really it's not in his mental makeup."

“The past is the past, and what I want to say about that is, I wish the press would leave it alone, because he was not involved with his grandfather, with his mother,” Clark Carman said Wednesday. “It was a pure accident, and he would never do anything like that.”

“He’s a good kid,” Clark said. “He loved his grandfather. It’s all being drudged up, and I really hate to see that, because there’s no substance to it.”

“I just want to thank the public for their prayers and for their concern for both myself and my mother,” he (Nathan) said.

On Wednesday, he (Nathan) declined to talk about what happened to his grandfather. But Carman spoke of the time at sea.

"All I'm going to say right now to you is that a terrible tragedy happened," Carman, who has a home in Vernon, Vt., said Wednesday in a telephone interview. "I'm lucky to be alive, I lost my mother and very, very difficult people
, especially The Hartford Courant are trying or, raking up the time when I lost my grandfather. [He] was like a father to me and casting that in just a very, very wrong light."

But there are lingering questions about what happened at sea.

Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Nicole Groll wondered how their exhaustive search failed to locate Nathan.

“He said his boat sunk off Block Canyon, and we scoured 62,000 nautical miles of sea,” she said. “He was found in the search area, his boat went down in the search area. Why didn’t he see us? Why didn’t we see him?”

Carman told Coast Guard officials that his boat began taking on water, and while he made it to the life raft, his mother did not.

There was no mayday call and no radio transmission of any kind from the fishing boat, according to the Coast Guard. On Tuesday, the Coast Guard released audio of their conversation with Nathan after he was rescued by the freighter.

September 29, 2016
“My grandfather was like a father to me, and I was like a son to him,” Carman told the AP. “He was the closest person in the world to me, and I loved him and he loved me, and I had absolutely nothing to do with his death.”

He said he swam to the boat’s life raft - about 15 to 20 feet away - then blew a whistle and called out frantically for her for hours.

“I was yelling, ‘Mom! Mom!’” Carman said. He added: “I loved my mother and my mother loved me.”

January 23, 2018
 “John was the most important thing to Nathan,” said Clark. “At times I think he felt he was his father more than me.”

 “There’s not a bone in me that thinks Nathan could have killed his mother,” he (Clark) said. “Maybe he did something to the boat, but that’s a mistake.”

ima.grandma said...

Links of legal interest :

August 17, 2017
Shortly after the Chicken Pox went down and Carman was rescued by the Coast Guard, Carman filed for reimbursement from the companies that insured the boat. They refused to make payment to him, contending the sinking was not accidental and was caused by Carman's deliberate modifications to the boat that caused it to take on water. 

Even though Carman "suddenly discovered" the Chicken Pox's bilge was nearly full of water, he neither radioed for help nor activated its distress system, states the Rule 16 Statement. "Although 75 miles or so offshore in water 750 feet or so deep, he incredibly tried to rationalize [in his Examination Under Oath] 'you don't signal for distress unless you are in ... imminent jeopardy.'"    


Habundia Awareness said...

Lucia D said...
What a story! I am shocked by people who murder more than one family member, but it happens.

February 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM

These days nothing shocks me makes people do awfull things to one an other......people kill for less then 10 million.

Peter Hyatt said...


This would make for a great true crime story. The lens of SA combined with plain language telling of the account would be fascinating.


Peter Hyatt said...

Nathan coerced his mother into going to dangerous waters.

Foolsfeeedonfolly said...

"Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom..."- Nathan is verbalizing relationship here. Mom is a title of authority, with the child being subordinate. The parent has the control. Two people could be any to two people- it's starkly devoid of any relationship. Myself and my mom places the child in the position of authority, relevance, and importance, with the mom becoming subordinate and under control/authority. The child has asserted himself as an equal, essentially taking control. In this case, the child has linguistically overcome the mom, separated from her, and no longer "needs" her.

ima.grandma said...

Insightful recap fools! Good job.

Hey Jude said...

"I plan to aggressively pursue all legal avenues available to me for rectifying the injustices which have already been perpetrated and obtaining a just outcome in the matters that are ongoing," he said.

Nathan Carman’s uncle says he is not aggressive, yet Carman by his own words, is planning to ‘aggressively pursue’ all legal avenues available to him - and that for the purpose of ‘rectifying the injustices which have already been perpetrated’.

‘Perpetrated’ is also an unexpected choice of word, as it speaks to intention to cause harm, yet he also avoids stating against whom injustices have already been perpetrated.

He cannot be speaking about his mother’s presumed death, as it was, according to him, accidental rather than an ‘injustice’ which was ‘perpetrated’. If he meant his grandfather’s murder he would have said ‘injustice’ rather than the plural. Death cannot be ‘rectified’.

He means that ‘injustices’ have been ‘perpetrated’ against him because he is under suspicion in the murder of his grandfather and the presumed death of his mother at sea, and because his entitlement to inherit his mother’s share of his grandfather’s estate is under legal challenge by his aunts.

Lawful questioning, finding him a ‘person of interest’, aunts trying to prevent him receiving an inheritance, and insurers not paying out for the sunken boat are neither unjust - nor illegal, harmful, or immoral, which is the dictionary definition of ‘perpetrate’. All are justified because he is suspected of murdering his grandfather and his mother.

He plans to ‘obtain a just outcome in the matters which are ongoing’ - there is no ‘just outcome’ for his mother or grandfather, who are dead and presumed dead, rather than ‘matters which are ongoing’. He is referring to clearing himself of suspicion, and of his determination to ‘obtain’ his inheritance. These are ‘the matters which are ongoing’, and which he plans to ‘aggressively pursue’.

He does not attribute ownership to anyone for ‘injustices already perpetrated’ or in the ‘matters which are ongoing’. He uses passive language to avoid staring plainly his interest, which is to aggressively pursue and obtain a ‘just outcome’ - he believes he is entitled to his mother’s share of his grandfather’s estate.

He chose to use ‘perpetrated’ incongruously, of those seeking truth and justice in the deaths of his family members. He also indicates, unintentionally, that he is aggressive in pursuit of obtaining his mother’s share of his grandfather’s estate. Am I correct in thinking those are instances of ‘leakage’?

I think, if he had a lawyer, he or she would not have issued a statement so worded. It is striking that he expresses no concern for the fate of, or recovery of his mother’s body, or any desire for justice for his grandfather’s killer.

Hey Jude said...

Perpetrated - unless all the news sources have duplicated a typo. Those I have looked at use 'perpetrated'. There are no corrections to the twe and three day old articles online, therefore there is no reason to believe Nathan Carman wrote or meant 'perpetuated' rather than 'perpetrated'. It was a written statement made by him rather than a transcript from his spoken words.

Hey Jude said...

If he had an attorney, he or she would maybe suggest he meant 'perpetuated' rather than 'perpetrated'. Nathan Carman fired his attorneys, so he must be confident in his choice of words - he surely would have at least double checked his statement.

Hey Jude said...

If it was 'perpetuated' it should be in the present tense 'injustices which are being perpetuated' - meanwhile, 'the injustices which have already been perpetrated' are in the past tense. The 'injustices already perpetrated' are (anyone's suspicion of his involvement in) the untimely and unnatural deaths of his mother and grandfather.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

I find that a high % of people who "plan" ("I plan to aggressively pursue all legal avenues) to take action for one reason or another don't go ahead with what they "plan". It is a weak statement. Plans can change.
Better to say I "will" aggressively pursue all legal avenues, also dropping the qualifier "aggressively".

It reminds of the 101 question.
3 frogs sitting on a log and one "decided" to jump into the water, how many are left?

Hey Jude said...

Hi, John - Even if it's bluster, he still looked into his PISD and chose, in a prepared statement, to portray himself as one 'aggressively' pursuing. He used 'aggressively' and ('perpetrated') when neither is appropriate in context.


We don't know how many are left, because the one frog may have changed his mind about jumping into the water.

Emma h said...

OMG, people with aspergers can become extremely resentful of those who 'care' for them (funny how the only 2 in this position are now dead). They can't read people or situations - always assuming the worst in others (if they don't get proper therapy)

I can say this because my asperger brother hated (more than loved) my Mum (he had good reason as she had alcohol problems) yet when she died, she became a saint. Only weeks before she died, he was telling me what a waste of space she was. Then I became the target of his emotional vomit.

He then cut me off completely - disconnecting his phone. We had a good relationship for 40+ years. He accused me of poisoning my Mum, stealing her jewellery and furniture. Even when I administered the Estate for no charge, distributing everything fairly (and the Coroner Report showed my Mum died a natural death) there was no apology.

He then sued me. This was the second law suit. First one I won - I was appointed administrator.

Not all people with aspergers are like this (we are deprogramming our aspi daughter - I have features of aspergers too but not a diagnosis).

Why am I saying this? For a rant.

Also, because Aspi's find complex emotions extremely hard to deal with. Dependency often produces hatred - they don't process emotions like typical people - it's all through logic (not emotion).

Seeing this, sure I am biased - but most asperger people don't kill - they just kill people through disconnection. Pity Nathan didn't.

Habundia Awareness said...

"Even when I administered the Estate for no charge"
Really? no charge? As if you need money to administered the estate of your own mother!
It sounds horrible to my ears.............humans are really bad!
Suggesting it's a 'big thing' to not have charged the time one had to spend administering the estate of their deceased loved ones.........and people wonder why I have difficulties with humans in general!

This is one example of why!

Hey Jude said...

Well, there's a lot to be said for logic - dependence upon emotions can be misleading.

Some people say they hate a parent when really what they hate is that they don't have a good relationship with a parent who they love.

I expect your brother accused you of poisoning his Mum, or both of yours Mum, rather than just your Mum.

It is unusual, I think, for a son or daughter to find not charging for administering a virtue.

How does one 'deprogramme' an Aspi? It's not as if being an Aspi is to have been brainwashed or programmed.

How does processing emotions through logic produce emotional vomit in the Aspi? That does not sound logical.

I wonder why he sued the second time.

Anonymous said...


I know that families are tough, mental health issues or not. Add death and inheritance stuff and it's even more complicated.

I also know that getting certain compensation (costs) for administering a will is not uncommon. I also know it can be abused(it happened in my family.) That doesn't sound like the case with you.

I hope you find some peace with all of it and don't listen to the posters questioning what they don't know.

Emma H said...

Thanks Anonymous, I've found peace but the legal action made it challenging. My brother can't really help himself, the way I see it.

A lot of people hide behind the internet to be nasty, I'm ok with that. I guess that's the price you pay for posting a comment.

Yeah, you're right Habundia Awareness, humans can be really bad - but I don't believe there are many that are. I said I didn't charge administration fees perhaps to paint myself in a positive light. The administration took years and years (about 3 to be precise).

It didn't feel right to charge but my brother's behaviour sure made me WANT to charge the fees (he placed an unlawful caveat over the house I was selling too, which made this part difficult).

You're entitled to your opinion. Opinions (including mine) are like arseholes. Everyone's got one. :)

ima.grandma said...

3 frogs sitting on a log and one "decided" to jump into the water, how many are left?

There are still three frogs sitting on the log, one only made a decision, he took no action! 

Without action, there will be no change.

John, I learned this one many years ago while in 'recovery' mode. It's still appropriate:)