Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Lucas Hernandez Update: Analytical Interviewing


Here is analysis and commentary of the interview with the step mother of missing 5 year old posted March 2018. 

Update May 2018 Emily Glass has taken a private investigator to the location of the child's body.  

The analysis of her psycho-linguistic profile led to this conclusion:  "Emily Glass is a strong candidate for obtaining a confession (or admission) in an Analytical Interview. Given the correct interview and a well chosen interviewer, she could give up the information on what happened to him.  The interviewer should use her words as much as possible, and an empathetic male interviewer may prove most effective.  He should be very willing to "clear" her in any manner possible.  She wants to speak."

We have learned that a private investigator spent 11 hours with her allowing her to talk. 

David Washburn, investigator 

Marshburn, said
he was driving back to North Carolina, and said he spent less than 11 hours with Glass before finding the body. In Wichita after speaking with Emily Glass for about five hours, he says he was 90 percent certain he'd find Lucas.

One of the biggest questions many ask is how Marshburn was able to convince Glass to take him and Ward to Lucas. Marshburn says he avoids an aggressive approach:

"When you're talking to someone who has committed a crime or who is involved in a crime and such, you have to read them the right way because if you don't, you're going to waste a lot of time," Marshburn said.

This is a good example of Analytical Interviewing.

  It is 80% to 90% subject speaking, with us only speaking 10% to 20% of the time.  This is because we do not have the information.  

In an interrogation, this is reversed.  Analytical Interviewing is a method used which is non intrusive, non interpretive and is based upon employing Statement Analysis techniques in a live interview. It means using the subject's own language.  

An interrogation is a vital part of an investigation, coming after the interview.  It is not always necessary due to the success of Analytical Interviewing.

Analytical Interviewing is legally sound and is based upon human nature's creative element of communication.  In short, every subject wants to tell us what happened. 

We were created to "do things" (work) and it is almost impossible for someone to not talk about something they "did" (activity).  Even while talking about something else, the crime committed will be foremost on the mind, seeking to avoid "leaking" out details.

When Ryan Braun was denying using testosterone, which is a heavy oily substance in a big needle, he said, "...this substance did not enter my body at any point..."

The needle was on his mind.  

When Baby Ayla's father Justin DiPietro was attempting to convince the media that he was cooperating with police he said, 

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with Waterville police..."

DiPietro was thinking about the body and the potential for it to float to the surface while talking about something else.  

Marshburn is correct about the "activity" being on the mind. 

Training will produce admissions and confessions and it does so in a legally sound, ethical methodology of careful skilled listening.  

The training for Analytical Interviewing is in seminar form and is preceded by Statement Analysis Training.  We use live exercises and video playback of the interview technique.  Once the principles are known, we move to implementing them in the interview process. 

It is challenging, exciting and it produces results.  


5 year old Lucas Hernandez was reported missing by his step mother, Emily Glass. 


Emily Glass had been arrested on child endangerment charges unrelated to Lucas.   This is a telephone interview with a journalist with the analysis from March. 

Learn how how words guide us to truth. 





Q. There’s obviously a lot of rumors going on, a lot of things that people are saying about your stepson Lucas, just curious if there’s anything that you wanna say about that situation?
A. Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises. He has had some falls… ehm… falls, you know, it could be there or at the porch ehm……. (pause), I’m sorry, ?...

We first note that she avoids giving a description of a single event, injury or incident, but speaks only in general terms. This is not simply indicative of avoidance, but suggests ongoing child abuse issues by the subject. This is a typical pattern heard from parents accused of child abuse and/or neglect. Introducing the word "porch" would immediately cause a child protective investigator to focus on that area of the house.

"Tell me about your house" beginning with a general question, moving on to note any repetition and/or avoidance of "porch" in te language.

A legally sound interview is one that holds up best in court.

The avoidance of a specific fall is important. It is likely at this point where she says, "you know", that she is considering a specific fall; likely one of significance.

That he has fallen and has been bruising roughhousing is likely true, but note that it avoids conclusive language and any denial of causing bruises.  This is technically truthful in the sense that kids fall and bruise.  Yet note that she enters into a hina clause of the need to explain not how, but why, he got bruises, with "he's being a boy"; rather than "he got bruised playing with his other brothers."

The need to explain "why" (not "how") he bruised should be considered with the incomplete information about bruising.  It is likely that at this point, the subject is concealing another source of his bruising. 



Note also "with older brothers" drops a common pronoun of possession.  


Q. No, you’re fine, take your time
A. He’s my son too, you know. I may not have given birth to him, but he's my baby boy… (pause)… I take care of him every day, you know, ehm, I ? ah… (long pause), this is very painful that this is happening at a time like this, right now

In missing child case, we view the Linguistic Disposition towards the victim.

A parent, caretaker, relative or close friend will care for the safety and wellbeing of what the missing child is currently experiencing. The unknown can drive them to the point of trauma. Someone who cares for a child cannot bear the unknown; it goes against instinct and it goes against habitual care.

When the baby cries, the mother soothes the baby. When the child falls, the "boo boo" is kissed and comfort given.

When a child is in the hands of a stranger, in an alleged kidnapping, the focus of the subject is always going to be what the child is experiencing, which pales out everything else. The focus or "Linguistic Disposition", which is measured, is to be positive (measure) and the priority.

Here we find the subject expressing empathy for herself.

Analytical Question:  What is her linguistic disposition towards the victim's plight?

As a missing 5 year old, we expect her, his "mother" with her "baby" to indicate concern for his present circumstances.  

We continue to wait to hear empathy for the victim.  As "missing", we expect to hear human empathy over what he is going through at the time of this interview:  who is caring for him, is he getting fed, his favorite toy, etc.  

Similar to the McCanns'  interviews:  they showed no linguistic concern for what Madeleine was experiencing, as biological parents, because they knew Madeleine was beyond their help, intervention or concern. Concerned parents show no concern for a child for a reason:  the child is beyond their realm of parental concern.  

Video of McCann interview analyzed.  


Q. Do you have any idea where Lucas might be at this point?

The pauses have been added by the transcriber. A pause means the subject needs time to think, which indicates sensitivity.
A,… (long pause)…. ah… but if anyone does know, please say something because me and dad are worried sick… you know…. I keep thinking and keep thinking what could have happened, you know… And I keep thinking back to these two people… ehm… that were outside of my house a few days prior… ehm, ‘twas a black man and white woman

The word "but" refutes and/or minimizes by comparison, that which preceded it.

"please say something" is deemed "appropriate" but it is weak as analysts have noted. It may be due to the now common expression about "see something; say something" in the United States. We do, however, expect more, such as "call police right away", etc.

"say something" is appropriate (acceptable) but then she adds on why someone should "say something"

"because" she and the dad's comfort is disrupted. "...say something because me and dad are worried sick."

This is a positive linguistic disposition towards self. It is not an expression of concern for the victim.

One should consider that:
a. Step mother is sociopathic and has no concern for the child or
b. Step mother knows or believes that the child is beyond her concern.

This latter (b) was evident in the McCanns. I did not see sociopathic indications or elements in Kate McCann's language.

In step mother's other statements, she does not indicate, even in the small sample, sociopathic indicators. We would need more sample to work from. She is concerned about herself, and shows no concern for the victim.

She then introduces two people.

She is thinking a lot, and is, at this question, very aware of the interviewer.  

She introduces "these" two people.  The word "these" indicates closeness.  With such closeness, we might wonder what the relationship and quality of contact was.  If she suspects them, we expect "those people" along with suspicion and linguistic concern for Lucas. 

We should consider the possibility of "narrative building" (story telling) with the language of, "a black man and white woman."

We should also be concerned about a drug purchase. There may be elements of fabrication stitched together with reality. 

This next question and answer impacts the previous analysis. 

Did she say "standing" outside?  If so, we can compare how "standing" is analyzed with how "staying" is analyzed below. The editing of the article is worthy of criticism. 




Q. Do you know them?
A. No, they were staying outside ? approx…. approximately 3 early morning, so I went out there and be like, hey, is everything okay, do you need to come inside or you stand here or you … stay here just like… no, I felt like I offended them or something… eh. And I said okay, I'm sorry, it's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in, you know. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe 10, 15 more minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone.

a. "standing outside" analysis
b. "staying outside" analysis

a. "standing outside":

They were not "outside", but they were "standing."  This is a body posture that indicates lack of movement.  Therefore, in her mind, time is stopping with this increase of tension.  This suggests that the presence of "these" two people is now very important to her.  In her mind, time is now stopped.  What follows is critical; even if there is falsehood within the account (such as race/sex):

"standing outside" slows down the pace and now introduces language:

"talking

This is an indication of her involvement in the communication.  As we progress through the statement, pause here and enter into her verbalized perception of reality. 

"standing outside"
"talking" and
"smoking a cigarette"  



All of these observations are unnecessary. Yet for the subject, they are critical. 
She compares the time ("actually") with another time.  This is to affirm the "stopping" of time in her statement.  This suggests that there was more communication between her and them than she wishes to let on.  We are now given more insight:

a.  "so I went out there" tells us that she has a need to explain why she went out there, because she anticipates the interviewer asking her. She is pre tempting the question.  The interviewer may not have even thought of the question had she said, "I heard two people talking outside my house..."

b.  ""so I went out there to be like hey is everything okay?"

She goes on to explain, again, why she went out there. 

We now can safely know:  She went outside with them for another reason. The reason is so sensitive to her that she employs deception (two blues here). 

What was the reason?

c.  "to be hey like is everything okay?" indicates the need to be seen as a good person.

This helps answer the question, "Why did she go out there?"

We may know that she went out there for something that makes her "the bad guy"; that is, for an illegal illicit reason. 

This could be a drug purchase.  This could be worse. 

Either way, it is related to the disappearance of the child. 

The use of "like" is to avoid telling us the genuine, but to characterize instead. 

She continued:  

Do you need to come inside? Are you stranded? 

She did not say that she said these things.  This lack of verbal commitment is narrative building. 

They were just like, no and just like looked at me like I offended them or something.


The communication was intense, with "looked at me":  

 "And I said okay, I'm sorry. It's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe another 15 or 20 minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone."

We now know why she keeps "thinking" about them.  As narrative "strangers" she "actually" (dependent, comparison) "did snap" a picture of them walking away.  

She anticipates being asked, "Why did you take their picture?"

She anticipated this so intensely, that she revisited the explanation even further.  The tension ("I'm sorry") is high and she was "just" (dependent, comparative) being "nice."  This tells us she is comparing her behavior with something else.  

Staying Outside 

There is a significant difference between the words.  We are not certain which she said.  

b.  "staying outside" indicate that the subject attempted to get them to come indoors (as stated) but their refusal is something that was very important to her.  Remember, she was asked a "yes or no" question only. 

Every word after the word "no" becomes critical. 

We note that in this recall, she portrays herself as the "good guy", which in analysis indicates the opposite. 

We note that she has given them a good deal of volume of words, which must be compared with:

What we know about the victim. 

What do we know about the victim from the step mother's words only?

This answer is important. 

She relates him, repeatedly to herself, via possessive pronoun. 
She changes him, linguistically, which must then be viewed in each specific context. 
She avoids using his name. 
She talks about him being bruised, avoiding all specifics, tagging "normal" (factor) which indicates to the contrary, removes herself from the equation (care for self; not victim, by sending him elsewhere) and introduces some words that likely indicate specific child abuse/neglect events, including the porch and cooking. 

Note that Neglectful parents often boast on how accomplished their children are in terms of self care that is not age appropriate. 

"I'm sorry" often finds its way into those with guilt, no matter what context it is found in. 

By them "staying outside", they did not yield to her will.  This is very important:

Her will, whatever it was, in context of Lucas being missing, was not followed.  

I am very concerned about this difference.  She anticipated being asked, "Did you take a picture of them?" which is not something an investigator or an interviewer would have thought to ask without some prompt from her.  This is how we see the high level of sensitivity in the word "because" in her statement. 


Q, Did you end up sending that picture to Jonathan?
A, Yes, I did, I did : he’s my baby boy…. he has sisters and he has brothers. He's so loved

She wanted proof of someone's presence regarding the disappearance of Lucas.

She claims ownership repeatedly in the context of this picture. Was she under some form of threat, prior to this event, where others said they were going to remove him from her custodial care? Was money involved?


Q. Now, Emily, I hope you understand I do have to ask you because of, you know, the arrest and because a lot of rumors; did you hurt Lucas?
Q. I did not. I would never hurt my son.

The follow up should have been something about the two people hurting him; this would have given her opportunity, according to her profile, to shift the blame to others. It was a missed opportunity, but it is easy to criticize the interviewer here, but he was up against "the clock"; that is, anything he says could cause her to hang up.


Q. Do you have any idea what could have happened?

poorly worded. Better, "What happened to him?" By using "any idea", he allows her to drift from what she knows; away from experiential memory and on to hypotheticals or former news stories or simply imagination. Although these can produce information from analysis, best is to use the Assumptive method: she knows what happens and has a psychological need to release it verbally.

A. Pause.. I mean, I have ideas but that ideas, I mean… ehm… I really should have spoken to you, ehm… through my attorney, but eh… I have (one thing?)

Here is the entrance of the need for an attorney. It was worth taking the chance by the interviewer, but it did produce defensive posture.

To have kept her on the phone, (I don't know if there was a time limit but there may have been), best to ask her things according to her own language. He did see her focus on self. Therefore,

"Tell me what you did for him"
"What was a typical day of caring for him like for you?" (note focus on her)
"Did anyone ever help you caring for him?" *(note avoidance of his name; we avoid using his name if she avoids using his name. We allow her to gain comfort by distancing herself from him).

"Were you his primary care taker?"
"Why didn't others help you?
"What could others have done to make things better for you?"

This slow progression of questions allows her to be exactly who she believes she is: the victim.

There may have been a 15 min time limit.
OK, yeah, is there anything else you wanna say?
I do want peop… I mean, I do want people to know my side, I’m just not there yet, you know… ehm…  ‘cause there is a huge history between Lucas’ family from New Mexico and I and all of the accusations… A majority of the time when he had gotten hurt and ended up with bruises, he wasn't under my care because I would send him off with my cousins and there's older boys over there and he's a very little, small boy and he can get hurt easily and when he's playing with older boys who are like 10 years old, even though we'd say hey Lucas be careful. We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

Note that she did not call him "Lucas" in her Linguistic Disposition. Here we have Lucas' family and what "we" "would" say. This is not her linguistic disposition towards him, but further distancing language and blame shifting.

Here she uses a form of subtle distancing regarding the bruising. First, she shifts the bruising away from her responsibility with the needed explanation of why this is so.  Rather than saying, "he bruised at his cousins'" she gives a more lengthy explanation.  This takes extra effort which, for a 5 year old, may be unnecessary. 



Next, she switches from "I" to "we", which indicates:  she does not want to be psychologically "alone" in context of bruising.

Who is the victim?

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful
The flow of the interview is better discerned than the edited news story. Here we find the flow, or context, to be more natural and clear.

Who is the victim in this event?

The linguistic disposition towards the victim indicates a subject in need of persuasion of her audience of being a good mother. Yet, she does not tell us anything about him of significance until this point:

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

We now know.

What happened to Lucas was Lucas' fault. His behavior brought this on. "We" did not tell him to be careful; we "had to tell him all the time", not just sometimes. He would not listen. This was his fault.

She is the victim and even as such, she wishes to be the victim with someone else ("we") which further tells us of her own personal responsibility in what happened to Lucas.

If Lucas had only listened to "them" ("we") then they would not have had to tell him this "all the time." This is taxing and it is to show concern for herself and the other person, and not for the victim.

Verbalized Perception of Reality

Statement Analysis recognizes that the words one uses is not reality, but the subject's own verbalized perception.

Lucas' behavior "made" her and someone else "have to" caution him. It was so often and so taxing that it was "all the time." Plus, he had to wear a pull up because he always had accidents.

The Linguistic Disposition towards the victim is Negative.

He "deserved" what befell him in the step mother's verbalized perception of reality.

We hear this in the language of child abusers...routinely.

Q. So you’re saying that all of those bruises and those things from the pictures and the accusations are all from him being a little boy and playing with other boys?

leading questions should be avoided; they allow for conclusion and to use his language. It is to directly reduce her stress.

A. Absolutely. Him and my older boys would be rough around the house and they would even get rug burn, you know, just normal boy things

"Absolutely" is persuasive and unnecessary. She continued to avoid any specific event (timing) but introduced:

"normal" which indicates anything to the contrary and

"burn" which means child protective investigators needed to check the victim's feet for cigarette burns in prior reports as well as current investigators seeking to learn if fire was used to cover a crime.


Q. Is there anything that you would want to say to Lucas if you could right now?
That I love him very much and I want him home

She loves him. She wants him home.  

How is he doing?

Q. Is there anything you want to say to the people who are saying you had something to do with this?

This is a good question and it allows for her to deny the obvious; particularly as she is in jail.
A. No, ‘cause that's on them it's not my concern

She avoids issuing a denial. She puts the burden upon "them" (this is very insightful for how to conduct the interview) and we now see that she is not concerned about them.

She is not concerned about Lucas.

She is, however, thinking a lot about "these" 2 people.

She may be banking on creating doubt by using them as a tangent.

Q. Can you tell me more about what happened that Saturday when he disappeared?

He asks for "more", instead of, "What happened when he disappeared?" It is a subtle mistake. It produces "just" below:
A. Just the fact that I took a shower and he took a nap like we always do. I put him down for a movie in his pull up because, you know, he has accidents when he sleeps so that's why he had a pull up on. Ehm… he had fallen asleep after my shower which is why I went down… I gotta go

Sexual Abuse is indicated in the language.
Possible drugging of child
She "put him down" as a 5 year old child. I believe her. This may have been a habit. It could be anything from cough syrup to illegal drugs so she could get her "shower" and "nap."

Reporter: I understand

Analysis Conclusion:


Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated in the disappearance of her step child, Lucas Hernandez.  She is not only deceptive, but she withholds critical information while seeking to shift blame to another.  

The language indicates both substance abuse and child abuse.  She may have drugged the victim. 

Victim Blaming

The human brain seeks to justify wrongdoing.  Child abusers (and child killers) are often skilled in the subtle blaming of the victim.  In shaken baby cases, the subject says things such as, "the baby would not finish her bottle" or "he would not stop crying" which puts the blame upon the victim's behavior. 

Emily Glass blames Lucas Hernandez.  He would not listen and he made her (and someone else) always have to tell him to be careful.  This is a very subtle justification for what befell him. 

It was his fault.  

The context is vital:  the child is "missing" and the expectation is that the parent or caretaker will show a majority of the language (priority) with what the child is going through currently.  This is something that can drive a parent crazy with worry.  Yet, the parent's focus is so acutely honed in upon the child, that the parent will neglect his or her own health, which is reflected in the language.  It is all about the child. 

Kyron Horman. 

There are some examples of this in the blog, such as the missing boy, Kyron, of which his mother's language (Desiree Young) should be compared to his step mother's, Terri Horman's language.  One indicates nothing but concern for Kyron, while the other shows guilty knowledge of his death.  

Setting:  Note the need to explain why the 5 year old wore pull ups is stated in a jail house, while the child is alleged to be missing. 

She denied "harming" him but did not deny killing him or selling him for drugs. If he was taken in a drug transaction, for example, she is not the one who "harmed" him, but the recipients did.  This is compartementalizing of guilt. This minimization is consistent with her subtle blaming of the victim. 

Sexual Abuse

 Although I need more for a definitive analysis, I believe he was likely sexually abused as was his step mother in her childhood. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of a blog entry.  Advanced Analysis Training for social workers, therapists and Sex Crimes Units goes into linguistic indicators of such, and explores it from the psycho-linguistic profile. 

The two people are very important to her and may be something she is concentrating upon for the purpose of shifting blame from herself by creating a doubt.  Even with elements of fabrication, this may be her hope as she is, indeed, giving it much thought. 

Also, the need to pull in the "father" is to be noted.  She may shift blame to him in some manner, down the road, and he is likely a source of child abuse, including exposure to domestic violence, in the child's short life. 

Psycho-linguisitc profile:


Emily Glass is a strong candidate for obtaining a confession (or admission) in an Analytical Interview. Given the correct interview and a well chosen interviewer, she could give up the information on what happened to him.  The interviewer should use her words as much as possible, and an empathetic male interviewer may prove most effective.  He should be very willing to "clear" her in any manner possible.  She wants to speak.  

Tangent



In the interview, let Emily Glass  be the "victim" in the interview and pity her for all her "endless struggle" to keep him "safe."  Let the scenario of "...if only others had supported her in getting him (Lucas) to be careful..." 

Let her be the "good mom" who is misunderstood.  

Bluff 

The interviewer should be willing to "expose" information about a "suspicious male seen in the area" and allow her to alleviate her guilt of neglect.  She should be taken through her own childhood and the failure to protect she, herself, experienced growing up.  She should be permitted to focus on herself, and how much she sacrificed for Lucas and how she did the very best she could, with so little support from others...and so on.  

She does not present as challenging in this short phone interview. If the interviewer will allow her to separate areas of guilt in the interview, and then allow her to accept only a small area of guilt ("self medicating" instead of drug abuse) and permit her "freedom" from child abuse, she is likely to reveal what happened. 

Like the McCanns, she shows no concern over what he is going through in the present, while "missing."

She knows he is not "missing" and she knows he is beyond her care. 


Deception Detection Training.

We offer seminars for law enforcement, business, private sector, social workers, medical professionals, lawyers and all those interested in lie detection, content analysis and profiling.

Our profiling is used to identify the authors of anonymous threatening letters and emails.

Advanced Seminars available for Sex Crimes Units.

Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home, at your own pace, with 12 months of e support. Joint Seminars with Steve Johnson, retired detective and analyst, with hand writing analysis.

13 comments:

ima.grandma said...

trustmeigetit said:
And the child’s birth mom was not angry about it? Her comment.

“Everyone, Take a deep breath, step back and chill. There’s a reason for this because of what’s to come. Let go, let god, Let WPD most of all. They got this, Lucas will get his justice.”


trustmeyoudontgetit
ima.grandma

ima.grandma said...

I understand. I stand corrected.

ima.grandma said...

Peter is a strong advocate for our Freedom of Speech. I stand with him. It’s due to that right and obligation that he graciously allows us to learn for free. It’s nice to see you Lucia. Yes, Peter is so right.

ima.grandma said...

Anyway, back to David Marshburn. I wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Marshburn read the original article and perhaps picked up a few tips along the way. Peter was on the money in his prediction. Although... I do believe this is Marshburn’s style and personality anyway. He’s a good ole’ boy from North Carolina and he used a parallel style in solving the Kelli Bordeaux murder.

Habundia said...

I was wondering. Is it expected for investigators not to press charges and release the person who guide them to the body of a missing child, who have claimed to "not know" where the child was, yet the person did and to wait for autopsy report and release the person who brought them to the missing child? Is this expected for this kind of circumstances?

If so? What could be the motive for them to do so? Is it so they can determine what charges have to be brought up? Cann't they add other charges after afweging for one charge? Like obstruction of justice? What could it be?

ima.grandma said...

Lesson of the day:
If you learn self control, you can master anything.

John mcgowan said...

Our #BOMBSHELL investigation into the disappearance and death of tot boy Lucas Hernandez continues today on #CrimeStories. Lucas’s biological father speaks with us for the full hour. Join us on SiriusXM Radio Triumph 132 at noon ET for this exclusive interview. ‬

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156806052923287&id=56641053286

MP said...

Thank you,ima.grandma, I am trying.
I have been on here for years and years, and have a high interest in SA, it is a fascinating tool.

MP

John mcgowan said...

xclusive: Lucas Hernandez’s father speaks out, no longer supports or believes former girlfriend, Emily Glass

Audio:


http://www.crimeonline.com/2018/06/04/exclusive-lucas-hernandezs-father-speaks-out-no-longer-supports-or-believes-former-girlfriend-emily-glass/

trustmeigetit said...

I do get it!

This is not the anger I would have if someone killed my child.

I would be screaming/cussing if she walked out of jail as would most people I know. This is a calm reaction. “Step back....chill..” is flat out NOT ANGER!!!!!

They had very clear cause to charge her and they did not. This is concerning.

And how many times have we seen cases where it was clear who killed the kid and they walked free.

But again, my views on this do not give you a reason to be rude!




ima.grandma said...

My comment included only a snip of your original post. Context is key. I’m sorry I was rude.

Shannon Pritchard said...

I am not a regular commenter but I've been coming to this site for years.

However, I just came across this news article. It appears Emily Glass has killed herself.

http://www.kwch.com/content/news/One-person-killed-in-shooting-near-Kellogg-and-Edgemoor-484932461.html

Mike Dammann said...

She did have a desire to talk.
And had an interviewer been able to let her and encourage her to talk freely it may be possible that feeling enabled and comforted into speaking, she may not have killed herself.

A minor add:
"These" two people were invited INTO her house by her. Yet she "snapped" a picture "of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone."

That is quite contradictory. You invite people who you are not sure about and potentially fear to enter your own four walls? Yes, she didn't say so directly. Only "like". But I believe that there was fear of whoever she was speaking about. But she didn't yield towards that fear in a protective and self protective manner.