Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Jeremy Banks on Death of Michelle O'Connell




Here is an article from the New York Times that includes exerts from the interview conducted.  There are many errors in the interview, including compound questions and leading questions, but the information from Banks is important.  

It is found HERE 

Domestic Violence  

What causes Domestic Violence?

This question is too complex for any single answer, but for investigative purposes, context is key. Most Domestic Violence reports have male perpetrators, though there has been an anecdotal noting of increase of female perpetrators reported by police. 

Love and Respect 

Men and women speak differently which allows for the author of an anonymous threatening letter to be identified by sex. In the language of Domestic Violence, we look for certain indicators.  Most experts address "control issues", which is true, but often misinterpreted using "check list" types.  Later, affidavits used to obtain protection orders are inflated due to fear, which may lead to backlash.  The truth is always best. 

Men thrive on respect as women thrive on love. Men and women need both respect and both need love, yet the language often reveals a lack in one or the other leading to conflict.  

 The difference in intensity is found in interviews by investigators, as it is by psychologists, therapists, and so on.  Men complain about being "disrespected" while women complain about being "unloved" or neglected.  At any time an exception will be found, but this is a general norm that we look for in language.  

In Domestic Violence, a man who becomes agitated because he perceives disrespect should not be missed in language.  

This need for respect and love is a normal course of life and is a bedrock for a good relationship.  Extreme need on either part,  however, can lead to inappropriate and even criminal behavior.  

A man who has a desperate need for respect can pose a risk to society in general; anywhere he perceives the lack of respect can become problematic, however, it can pose a specific risk to a woman in the case where he perceives her being disrespectful, which he considers as a threat to his manhood and ultimately, his control over her.  He may not hear, "I disagree with your decision" as spoken, but "you hold me in contempt!" while the bewildered victim struggles to understand what he means.  

When this is combined with poor impulse control, the threat increases.  

When this is combined with substance abuse, the poor impulse control is hastened and the danger increases.  

Law Enforcement Hiring 

There are those who command respect and there are those who demanded respect.  

The former, as public servants, are the majority of professionals.  Their demeanor commands respect because they protect and serve. Those who verbally demanded respect can give law enforcement an undeserved bad reputation.  

When police are taunted, they "see" the words of the taunters and refuse to give them power. They become indifferent to them.   Hiring the "best and brightest" leads to safety for the public, and an increase of deescalation skills on the part of the professionals in law enforcement. 

The political "war on cops" made it fashionable to despise police and authority in general.  This only made life for law enforcement more taxing.  

The most stressful job for Americans in terms of elevated hormonal responses, day after day, is law enforcement.  Politicians made it much worse.  The taxing of the immune system takes its toll like nothing else, and the myriad of problems that stem from this are difficult to trace. 

From illnesses that would have normally been readily fought off, to substance abuse to psychological  trauma that robs them of the necessity of sleep, gives them intrusive thoughts of suicide, and pokes holes in their marriages, the low pay, high risk job now met with public animosity that benefited only those who gained votes from it. 

Domestic Violence 

When this acute need for respect couples with a job in which lethal force is necessary, it speaks to a failure of the screening process.  The extreme insecurity, often masquerading itself, comes out in the language and Statement Analysis should be a part of every hiring process for law enforcement, beyond the typical psychological screening.  


Michelle O'Connell committed suicide, concluded the investigation into her death.  In 2013, Statement Analysis of Deputy Banks' phone call, however, indicated him for deception in what happened to Michelle.  

The call revealed a great deal of information that should have been used in the investigation.  The polygraph should have been, almost uniquely, in the language of Banks, himself. 

911 calls do not have any special 'status' or change in principle within Statement Analysis.  'Check lists' are helpful, only in calling one's attention to an issue, but should not be relied upon for 
conclusion.  

It is my assertion that the polygraph, when administered employing the subjective dictionary of the subject, is close to 100% fool-proof.  When the examiner speaks on and on, the subject learns and uses his language; language of which there is:

a.  No emotional connection
b.  No historical, that is, subjective connection personally.   

The molester who went on to repeat after passing his polygraph did not "molest" his girlfriend's daughter, he "tickled" her.  The word "tickle" was his personal subjective understanding, as he had no attachment with "molest" since "molest" means "pain", and he only "tickled." 

This it the cause of most errors in polgraphy;  the subject is given language that is not part of his personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  

Each person has their own personal subjective dictionary.  Had Bill Clinton been asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" he could  have passed the polygraph in his denial. 

Had he been asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky?", he would have failed in his denial.  He had a personal and highly subjective definition of "sexual relations" which he shared with Lewinsky before testimony saying, "it means intercourse.  We didn't have intercourse." 

This gave us insight into a pathological (life long) liar.  It was why he was able to say:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." 
to the American public, plainly and without qualification.  

In Banks' 911 call, not only do we see enough signals to conclude "guilty knowledge" within the call, we have insight into his personality; something that ended with the death of Michelle O'Connell that was not suicide.  

Our words reveal us. 

Our words, even under 'excited utterance' or an emergency, will reveal our:

1. background,
2  experiences
3. personality
4. priority

One might be tempted to say "I know the priority of the 911 call:  it is to save Michelle."  This is a good place to start.  We must learn if the words affirm this, or if the words employed deny this.  

This is the study of psychological profiling via statement analysis that is taught in our Advanced Course.  It sets the state for both the strategy and the tactics of the interview and interrogation.  You get to "know" the subject and his own language before the interview and interrogation and hopefully, before a polygraph is administered.  

Here is another look at the call with some of the more subtle points given.  








DISPATCHER: 911.

JEREMY BANKS: Hey.  Please get someone to my house! It’s 

4700 Sherlock Place. Please!


We have already noted that in an emergency call, the typical 

Statement Analysis principle of "expected versus unexpected" is 

in play, as the call begins with "Hey" which is a greeting.  We 

do not expect politeness, in any form, in such an emergency 

as one finding his girlfriend bleeding to death.  Urgency is 

expected. 


Please now consider the topic of "Urgency" 

In any emergency like this one, urgency is presupposed.  What 

do we look for?

We look for "Urgency" versus the "appearance of urgency" in the 

call. 

Consider that this is a deputy calling.  This means he knows

precisely how the 911 system works:   

while he is on the phone, dispatch begins.  This is an example 

of scripted or feigned urgency, as he repeats the call for help

yet he never asks for help for the victim. 

In fact, he says "get someone", and not anyone specific to come, 

but already:

1.  We do not expect the emergency call to begin with a greeting;

2.  We do not expect to hear politeness 

3.  We do expect the caller to ask for help for the victim, or, in

the case of CPR, help for himself, including how to stop the 

blood.  Even those trained, under emergency settings, still may 

require guidance, should the training give way to emotion.  

"Please" is repeated here. 

The 'need to ingratiate' or align himself with 'the good guys', that

is, with authorities, is evident.  

It is one single mistake made by the Dispatch that reveals great 

insight into Jeremy Banks' personality.  



DISPATCHER: What’s going on?


JEREMY BANKS: Please. Send─ my girlfriend, I think she 

just shot herself. There’s blood 

everywhere!



We note in analysis that he does not ask for help for her.  We 

have his third use of the polite and ingratiating "please", as if 

he does not know that dispatch has already taken place.  We 

then come to a critical place in the call where the victim is 

now introduced for the first time.  This is vital in our 

understanding.   Who is Michelle O'Connell?

This question is not for us to answer, but the subject, himself. 

Who is Michelle O'Connell to the caller?

We begin with Statement Analysis 101:  the social introduction.  

As this is an emergency call, we had already expected him to 

have already identified why rescue, not someone, was needed.

He did not, but gave the address, along with his politeness and 

his greeting.  He took the time to say "please" twice, but not 

to report that Michelle was bleeding. 

He reports that his girlfriend may have shot herself. 

He does not report that his girlfriend is bleeding.  

He does not report that he has his hand on the wound to stop

the blood flow. 

He only identifies her as she relates to him.  

This "incomplete social introduction" is an indication that at this

point in the statement, the relationship is not good.  

This is the essence of the teaching of social introductions.  We 

learn the quality of the relationship in the statement, in the

verbalized perception of reality, from the subject's unique point

of view. 

This is to tell us:

He has not asked for help for her, and that there is a problem in 

their relationship while she lays bleeding and he speaks to 

authorities. 

Context is key. 

That he has not asked for help for her is noted or 'red flagged.'

Why?

Because those who have committed the crime may not want 

help for the victim; but for themselves.  

If she lives, she may be able to tell authorities what happened.  

Psychologically, he is telling us that while Michelle lay bleeding

to death, he does not want to use her name, nor for her to receive

help as this might impact him.  (please see analysis of the 911 

call for clarity as this focuses upon the psychology of principle).

Next, he must report what happened:

1.  He only "thinks" she shot herself

2.  Passivity employed regarding the blood.


1.  He gives a weak assertion that she may have shot herself.  To 

use the word "think" here, he expresses a 'weak commitment' to

what happened.  It is a guess, at best.  This indicates that he 

either does not know if she shot herself, or that he does not 

want to be identified as knowing that she shot herself.  

This is then connected to:

2.  "There's blood everywhere."

This is in Passive Voice.  Passivity in analysis indicates a desire

to conceal, and this concealment is often responsibility. 

"There's blood everywhere" does not tell us:

a.  who's blood it is

b.  who caused it

In less than a millisecond of time, he chose wording that would 

conceal responsibility for the shooting while, again, 

psychologically distancing himself from her while she lay 

bleeding out. 

What could he have said?

"Michelle is bleeding from..." and what he is doing to remedy it.  

The use of passivity means he does not want it know who's 

blood is everywhere because blood does not just end up 

everywhere, it must be caused by someone and some thing.  This 

use of passivity does not sound 'right' to dispatch:  



DISPATCHER: She what?

With or without proper Statement Analysis training, the person is

going to recognize how awkward things sound...not hearing her

name as well as the passive voice.  Hence, the question is asked

for the purpose of clarification.  This ended up working out for

those interested in truth:  



JEREMY BANKS: She shot herself! Please. [unintelligible] Get 

someone here please.



Here he plainly reports the change:  "she shot herself."

a.  "She" is not "Michelle"; he again avoids using her name.

b.  "She shot herself" no longer is qualified by "think" which

reveals that he initially was not truthful when he used the 

additional word "think."  For those who would defend him 

based upon 'excited utterance'; the same defense is the same

that convicts him:  it takes more effort to add a word in than 

it does to leave it out (the law of economy).  By forcing him 

to repeat "what happened?", he goes to the shortest route of 

language dropping the qualifier.  


This is where "deception indicated" becomes strengthened.  We 

also have him making an effort with two more uses of the polite

"please" that is used to appear to be begging.  This need to 

appear to be urgent is undermined by his use of both passivity 

and of psychological distancing language; including his 

avoidance of saying her name.  

The next statement gives us insight into the negative relationship

that has already been discerned by the incomplete social 

introduction, distancing language and passivity:  



DISPATCHER: Ma’am? Ma’am, I need you to calm down.



JEREMY BANKS: It’s mister! It’s SIR!


This is critical.  Whereas most would not care to correct but to 

seek guidance on how to stop the blood flow, he uses the 

opportunity, instead of helping Michelle, to correct the 911 

operator.  He not only corrects 911, he uses two different 

words to do so.  

First he uses "mister" as to identify gender, but the language 

undergoes a serious change.  Remember the context:  not only 

has he not asked for help, nor guidance to stop the blood flow,

but he has a need for respect while she lay bleeding to death.

He makes certain she knows it is not only a "male" that 

911 is talking to, but he will be addressed as "Sir." 

As we consider that he does not ask for help, nor does he address

the blood flow or first aid techniques, he has already revealed 

a problem in their relationship.  Now, he shows more concern 

that he, himself, be respected, than Michelle, who's name he will 

not utter, who lays bleeding out.  

This is to provide insight and due to the extremity of the 

situation, respecting him is a priority far above that of 

Michelle's emergency need for help.  

Most people would not care enough to correct the operator on 

unnecessary information.  He, however, not only corrects her,

but does it twice.  This high intensity, high hormonally driven

call is insightful into his priorities and personalty traits. 

In Domestic Violence, we often see the "need for respect" from 

a male abuser.  



DISPATCHER: Ma’am, listen to me─


With a loved one bleeding to death, one is not likely to care to 

correct the error, but to address the first aid need to stop the 

blood.  



JEREMY BANKS: It’s SIR! It’s SIR. Listen─ hang on, let me 

tell you the truth.  I’m Deputy  Banks with the St. Johns County

 Sheriff’s Office. I work with y’all. Get someone here now!


This provides insight into his psyche.

He is "Deputy Banks" and you better address him as "Sir" as he

now takes "authority" yet a single word here, "truth", tells us

precisely what he wanted to withhold:  his own identity. 

He introduces himself by saying, "let me tell you the truth."

This indicates that the "truth" of this case involves him, 

on  a professional level. 

Not only did he not ask for help for her, nor offer help for her,

and that he distanced himself from her, her status, one of 

bleeding to death is directly related to his job.

This tells us to carefully go back and review the need for 

passivity in speech:  to conceal responsibility. 


Dept. Banks has the need to conceal who caused the blood of

Michelle O'Connell to be found everywhere.  

He does not ask for help for her because he does not want her 

to receive help.  

He has now admitted that he has not told the truth, but:

'You will call me "Sir", for I am "Deputy Banks" and I have not 

told you the truth before, but now I have revealed it. '

When coupled with passivity in speech, we have a connection 

between him as a professional (armed) and her blood. 

This is his connection, in which he attempts to conceal with 

his scripted "please please" (5x) as he continues to demand

what he already knows is happening, yet his brain, in choosing 

what words to speak, will not allow him to say why "someone" 

should come to his house.  

He does not ask for help for the victim.  


He has told us that this is a bad relationship and that he has a 

powerful need to be respected...or else.  This is likely what 

Michelle O'Connell lived under.  


DISPATCHER: Ok i need you to calm down you know how it 

goes. Whats the address ? I don't..

JEREMY BANKS: 4700 Sherlock Place.

DISPATCHER: Ok what's going on there?


Dispatch has a need to ask this because he gave conflicting 

accounts.  First he feigned that he did not know and then 

he told that he did know, and introduced the word "truth" all 

the while avoiding both her name and the request for assistance.

He did not ask for help for himself in administering aid to 

stop the blood, nor has he expressed any concern for her. 

Yet, while showing no concern for her, he makes quite certain

that he gets the respect his office demands. 

There are likely those who will attest to this personality, both

in the department and in the public, including those who may 

have been stopped by him in traffic.  

We all give ourselves away in language.  Here, we are hearing

not only deception, but classic insecurity and control that is

indicative of precisely what the language of incomplete social

introduction and distancing show:  domestic violence.  


JEREMY BANKS: My girlfriend has just shot herself with my 

duty weapon. Please get someone here now please.


Here is another critical point:  he already has admitted knowing

that she "shot herself" but now, rather than show any concern

for how he may assist her, the call continues to be about 

Jeremy Banks, himself:   this sentence reveals the ownership of

the weapon, as if this matters.

It does not matter to an innocent caller who owns the weapon, 

instead, the innocent caller wants the victim saved. 

He has not addressed any urgent need for the victim, but 

has the need to, now that he is telling the truth, identify the 

ownership of the gun.  

The scripting of "please" (7x) continues, while he avoids using

the victim's name; only relating to her how she relates to 

him.  We have his girlfriend and his "weapon."  

That he called it his "weapon" warrants further exploration into 

his cultural use of the phrase.  However, the pronoun "my" 

tells us of his priority.  

Do you know Michelle's condition?

Do you know where her blood is leaving her body?

Do you know if she is breathing?

Do you know if he has done anything to stop the blood flowing?

We know none of these but we do know who owns the weapon. 

We also know something else...

timing.

"has just"

Consider how close this comes to a confession. 

If he said, "my girlfriend just shot herself" it would indicate 

that he was deceptive when he said, "think" previously.  This 

deception is affirmed but the incomplete past tense use here 

tells us much more information than meets the eye.

He did not say "my girlfriend just shot herself" which the word

"just" would indicate something close to the present time; that 

is, quite sudden, or before this call.

Instead, he used "has just" which is an imperfect past tense 

usage.

"My girlfriend has just shot herself..." even though his point 

of admission is ownership of the gun, the use of 

"has just" indicates a passing of time. 

He took it from 'sudden' past, to a 'spread out' past time. 

This tells us, in the less than millisecond of time that his 

brain chose this word for the tongue, that time elapsed 

longer than he wishes to let on, of which he was eye witness.

Now, why would he do this?

Answer:

Because he is thinking of what happened before she shot 

herself.  He is thinking of the time period that he was 

present, where something happened that he does not want

the 911 operator to know. 

He is withholding critical information.  


Something happened, in direct relationship to her shooting

herself, that Jeremy Banks is withholding.  


It is in this period of time that there may have been a brutal

fight, assault, or something else that is directly related to 

her death.  

If it is true that he broke her jaw, this is when it happened.  


DISPATCHER: Sir we're doing that while in talking to you. is 

she still breathing ?


911 properly addresses him as "Sir", and reminds him of what 

he already knows:  they are in transit.  

Since he has offered nothing about her, but lots about himself, 

he now must be asked about her current condition.  

Is Michelle breathing?



JEREMY BANKS: No,there is blood coming out of everywhere.-

please.


He answered the question, used his "please" again (8) and

avoided her name, while going back to the passive voice

about blood.  Now it is coming "out" of everywhere.  This 

avoids telling us the source of the blood, while we continue to 

wait for him to say that he is trying to stop the blood flow.  




DISPATCHER: Ok, she's not breathing.


JEREMY BANKS: Call dispatch on Tac 2, get them here now.


He has gotten through the 'worst' of revealing who he is and 

has employed deception to avoid telling what happened 

in its entirety, and has regained his 'authority' over dispatch. 

This is affirmed by the sudden disappearance  of "please"; as he


no longer feels the psychological burden to ingratiate himself;


he has been called "sir" and he has been restored to his 


place of authority. 


This is a dangerous man.  


As to this regaining of confidence, it is quickly lost when a 


single word from the operator reverses the roles:  he is told what 


the police "need" him to do:   



DISPATCHER: Sir they're on the phone I need you to calm 

down


This puts him back into a subordinated role as police "need" or 


direct him to do something.  This brings back the script:  




JEREMY BANKS: Please please please-



DISPATCHER: Jeremy were coming as fast as we can ok? Calm 

down for me ok.



911 now calls him "Jeremy" and implores him to calm down.  


He gave them no information and how to be asked about her


breathing.  



JEREMY BANKS: Please, you don't understand she just shot 

herself, pleases get someone here.


As he continues this subordinated position, he implores the 

operator to "understand" what he has repeated.  He needs her to 


"understand" him.   This is to show

that he has a decent intellect; he understands the points that 

he made poorly, including "I think my girlfriend shot herself..." 

which then nullifies "my girlfriend has just shot herself"; as 

an outright lie.  

Jeremy Banks is the one in need. 

He needs to be understood. 

He needs to be justified.  

He gave no detail about her condition yet pleads for that which 

he already knows is underway (see his 'authoritative voice') 

and his need of personal respect. 

He is more concerned about himself and the ownership of 

the gun than the victim, of whom he did not ask for help. 

He did not offer her condition, nor how he would remedy her 

condition through first aid.  







Analysis Conclusion:

Jeremy Banks indicates deception via withholding information. 


Context:  "Excited Utterance" reveals the truth. 


While calling 911 to report his fiancée's emergency state, he showed more emotion, linguistically, regarding himself than he did the victim. The perceived disrespect of the operator triggered him and gave us a frightful look at what Michelle likely saw. 


Personalty indicates "control abuser" and one who has deep insecurity to the point of the profile of a male abuser.  His need for outward respect should have precluded him from being hired in law enforcement. 

He is not likely  to admit much but investigators will have to focus on interrogation skills using blunt language and forensics but especially the tool of his own language, need for respect, and his need for control.  

They must exploit his need for respect, while putting him into a subordinated role by using his own words as well as evidence. He will feel 'shamed' in reading 
or hearing his own words and how they betrayed 
him.  His anger could provoke him into admission, or in the least, to revealing information, just as we saw when the 911 operator referred to him as a female.  

Collateral interviews should confirm or suggest confirmation about the relationship as well as his acute need for respect.  

The language is consistent with Domestic Violence. If the exhuming of her body has revealed a broken jaw, it is likely that this is what Banks had in mind when he used an imperfect past tense (elongated) reference above.  This is likely where the dispute escalated.  

 Jeremy Banks is deliberately withholding information about what happened.  


Objection:  he lost his temper due to the stress he was under finding his bleeding fiancée. 

Answer:  Agreed.  Under this stress, these are the words he chose, revealing his personalty under stress.  This is why 911 calls are sometimes referred to "excited utterance." 

Note what produced this response and then note what did not produce this response. 

Then, look at the other indicators of deception within the 911 call.  

It is the overall analysis that concludes he was not truthful in this call. 

Please note that Jeremy Banks has been cleared by investigators and is judicially innocent.  

When one speaks, there is an expectation that the audience will believe or disbelief the subject, and retain the right of personal opinion.  

If you are interested in Statement Analysis training, for your department or business,  please visit www.hyattanalysis.com for seminars, courses, on going training, and support.  

10 comments:

Lucia D said...

Two women overhear another woman scream for help, followed by 2 gunshots, followed by silence. Yet they do nothing and say nothing about it until many months later when they are confronted by authorities. Sickening.

Lucia D said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Habundia Awareness said...

The ones who did go to police to tell what they knew or had seen things weren't heard and their reports were never taken or put in the file, because it was already 'determent' that suicide had occur.
What I do find horrible is these two woman did NOTHING.......it was only after 10-15 min that sirens were heard by them....but they weren't the ones who called police (wonder who did or was police coming because of his 911 call.......or did anyone else call?)
So 10-15 minutes they stood there. What did they do in the mean time? Did they go on talking to each other as nothing happened? As if they didn't hear a thing?

Why are police to often too eager to conclude suicide in situations that demand proper investigation? Even if someone really comitted suicide they wouldn't have done that if their lives were wonderful and great. Suicides mostly happen when the one who wants to comit suicide is by theirself.......i haven't heard of cases where one comitted suicide in the present of another......i am not saying it could not happen, but most happen in private, when nobody is present (at least the suicides ive experienced or heard of all happened when the person was on his/her own) or after they have killed others (husband/wife, children)
So when someone is present when suicide occurs.........it SHOULD be handled as a possible murder case......it should only be concluded suicide if it has been determent that the one present had nothing to do with the dead of this person.


Hey Jude said...

In the NY Times article is Jeremy Banks 911 call - it's not surprising the emergency operator believed the caller was a woman, as the pitch of his voice was so high, and his manner hysterical. I find it strange that a police officer, believing his girlfriend was dead - '"Is she breathing?' -"No'" - would make such an hysterical sounding call, particularly as his purpose was not to ask for medical assistance, or how to precede with CPR - the urgency is to no end - I think he is acting. Though he is young, as a police officer, he should, imo, have been capable of responding in a calmer and more professional way, even though the death was that of his girlfriend - he is quite able to be rational, mid call, in his demand to be called 'Sir'.

When he says, "Let me tell you the truth", does that call into question the truth of everything he said which preceded that? He had not been untruthful, as such, about his identity because up till then, he had neither given nor been asked his name. "Let me tell you the truth" - is he thinking that he has already told the operator something which is not the truth, but now he will tell the truth? The truth he chooses to tell is his identity as a deputy, though he had not been untruthful, or misidentified himself - he had been misidentified as a female caller by the operator, due to the pitch of his voice. Is he giving away that the call has been an act - not "the truth" - and it is only the indignity of being mistaken for a woman that interrupts the act - "let me tell you the truth"' is strange, as though he was somehow denied the opportunity by the operator.

---

It's shocking that the case was so poorly handled and that the scene was not treated as a crime scene until it could be determined if Michelle had died as a result of murder or suicide. It's shocking that Jeremy Banks was not investigated for homicide, even after Dr Hobin the pathologist, changed his mind and decided the autopsy finding should have been homicide rather than suicide - that new finding was not even registered.

I hope the investigators who know what they know, and the family and the blogger/s keep on and on until the case is reopened and properly investigated.



Anonymous said...

In reading Jeremy's words vacillating between "please" and demanding respect and back to "please" I get a picture in my head of an abusive man who will hurt someone and then plead incessantly for forgiveness, and say that he will never do it again, in order to win back the person he hurt. Are all of his "please"s an attempt to win back favor with other law enforcement, knowing he has broken the law?

Willow said...

There's disturbing material in the (written, too) links.

Mr. J.Banks switched off his high pitced tone abruptly in mid call when the dispatcher took him for a female. What's more, a female without rank and high status.
One could not un-hear his quick altering of conduct and voice-pitch, and if it hadn't been so outrageously cruel it would have been comical.

Is it so that Mr. Banks is a free man according to ended investigations that found it was a suicide?
For a personality who can switch off and on dramatic behaviour at will revealing his true priorities, among other symptoms, it constitutes a win to be exempted from consequences.
This is a big win by far, specially, when there are obvious anomalies in the investigation process. He is not alone winning. There has to be a sense of being under wider protective wings.
Someone obstructing help and showing a motive to play-act in a life and death situation doesn't change. They do learn from the brushes with law only to improve their fatal behaviour in the future.
It is shocking if the investigation is done for good, and it's a traumatizing message. Those in power to keep or release send a note to everyone with their inaction:
- We don't care how you take this, but you will take this, and live with this, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Willow said...

..."brushes with law only to improve their fatal behaviour in the future. "

With this I mean, they learn to pretend better, cover their motives more carefully, not incriminate themself so obviously, in short, worsen their behaviour in the future.

Willow said...


Often problems rise in a relationship when a man does not need or want to be respected according to merits.
He prefers fake-respect. It's an extra bonus for him if all the parties know it's not for real, but they have to do the 'respect' thing according to his whims for him anyway.
Or, else, he will retaliate.

The man insists on a flow of visible forms of subservience in and outside the home. He revels in the fear that he instills in the children and the partner.
He knows what he is doing.
He never picks persons for respect-abuse equal to himself in size, rank, status and power. He knows he might get beaten.



Jan Taljaard said...

He probably killed her, if his voice is so high pitched maybe he is a clossed
gay.

Nadine Lumley said...

Dr. Pat Allen says that Alpha man needs respect and the feminine woman needs to be cherished. Pat says that there can be no intimacy in a relationship if both Partners want respect or both want to be cherished at the same time. She says there's no disco dancing individually in a relationship, you have to dance like a waltz and let the man lead.

She says if you're a feminist working woman you can be the man at work but you have to turn into an idiot when you get home and let the man feel like a manly man.



Dpa says the woman has to put the effort in first before she'll get back what she needs from the man, so if you want heat from the fireplace, the woman has to put the wood in first.

Her book has been selling for decades:

https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Do-Secret-Doing-Relationships/dp/0380718154

.