Monday, July 23, 2018

Analysis: Whoopi Goldberg Denial





Presupposing the moral inferiority of one who disagrees with self leads to discord. Faux moral supremacy leads to violence. This is evidenced in history and in our daily lives. It is found in theft and exploitation statements. 

What do we look for?

a. Rationalization 
b. Moralizing 
c. Minimization 
d. Justification 
e. Outrage

The outrage is the most important element in statements where the faux moral supremacy is claimed. It is often, though not always, preceded by the perception of humiliation.

Humiliation is a powerful trigger in crime and in violence. It is an impetus for Anonymous Threatening Letters and emails.

When one believes in a false or "faux" moral high ground, the pragmatism is strengthened. The restrictions of "means" is lifted to justify whatever "ends" the moral supremacist seeks.


Moral Supremacy in Criminal Analysis

In the verbalized perception of reality, thieves do not steal. They "take" (which is why we do not use the word "steal" in the interview nor polygraph) but not "steal."

They often will give linguistic indication of being a victim, even as they victimized another.

This is an example of human nature's powerful resistance (and even denial) of guilt.

Thieves "reimburse" or "balance the account." Clever politicians divide people, obtain votes and are successful in destruction by telling people they are being "victimized" by another, setting one against the other. Sometimes thieves are given resolve by politicians who have also set up the category of "hate" crimes.

What to look for?

Victim Status.

In a recent crime, thousands of dollars of cash was stolen. Yet, the thief left the victim a few hundred dollars.

Here is the denial of Whoopi Goldberg who was alleged to have:

a. Invited Judge Jeanine Piro on her show to be interviewed
b. Shouted down answers, over talked and sermonized instead of obtaining information.

Interviewers obtain information.

Consider the scenario that follows. In watching the video:

a. Moral Supremacy, Moral Narcissism
b. How to Inflame
c. How to Avoid Obtaining Information in an Interview.

Here is anti-Trump or "Never Trumper" commentator, Ben Shapiro, with clips from the show.

The Subject is Jeanine Pirro. 

The Interviewer is Whoopie Goldberg.

The Interviewer's job is to obtain information.

Does she obtain information as a host? If not, did this impact the subject?






For profilers: what might have happened if the aggressor was a male with high levels of testosterone?

In the following statement, we look for a Reliable Denial and to discern Content Analysis. Some elements of the pyscho-linguistic profile emerge.


ABC's "The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg responded to allegations that she berated Fox News host Jeanine Pirro using profanity and that she spit on her by denying some of the allegations, confirming others, and adding some allegations of her own.

I.  The Statement 

"She was upset when she got here, because Ana Navaro was here instead of Joy. And after the segment, which ended when it was supposed to—it was not early, it was not late, it ended when it was supposed to—she then called everybody at the table a name I cannot repeat on TV and said it in front of the audience. When I came offstage, I went over there, because I was a little hot, okay? So I went to calm down. She came off, she could have just passed me, she didn’t need to stop, but she stopped, and put a finger in my face, and said, ‘I’ve done more for victims than you ever will.’"

Goldberg then disputed Pirro's claim that she was spit on but did confirm that she used profane words while verbally attacking her.

"Then I said to her some few choice words I cannot repeat. Yes, I did say it, I did say it, but I did not spit on her, I did not intimidate her, no one chased her out of here saying get out, but she did leave here cursing at the people who booked the show, she cursed at the guys who do the security for the show."


Here you can complete analysis first and then scroll down to an abbreviated analysis to check your findings.  


II. The Statement With Emphasis and Analysis 

Expectation: "I didn't tell her to get the f&*^( out of the building..." would include:

a.  The pronoun "I"
b.  The past tense verb
c.  The allegation specifically answered. 

Did she curse and throw out her guest from a business location? 



"She was upset when she got here, because Ana Navaro was here instead of Joy. And after the segment, which ended when it was supposed to—it was not early, it was not late, it ended when it was supposed to—she then called everybody at the table a name I cannot repeat on TV and said it in front of the audience. When I came offstage, I went over there, because I was a little hot, okay? So I went to calm down. She came off, she could have just passed me, she didn’t need to stop, but she stopped, and put a finger in my face, and said, ‘I’ve done more for victims than you ever will.’"

Goldberg then disputed Pirro's claim that she was spit on but did confirm that she used profane words while verbally attacking her.


"Then I said to her some few choice words I cannot repeat. Yes, I did say it, I did say it, but I did not spit on her, I did not intimidate her, no one chased her out of here saying get out, but she did leave here cursing at the people who booked the show, she cursed at the guys who do the security for the show."


Everyone has their own personal dictionary.  Pronouns and articles aside, subjectivity can be difficult and should be sought to be understood by the context or the subject, herself, in the interview process. 

The subject is accused of cursing and spitting at the guest and telling her to "get the f*&% out" of the building.  In denying the allegation, here is where she chose to begin:

"She was upset when she got here, because Ana Navaro was here instead of Joy. 

This is where the subject began the statement in the denial. 

a.  It does not being with the pronoun "I" reducing psychological commitment to that which now follows. 
b.  The sentence begins with the accuser. 
c.  The sentence begins with the accuser's emotion.
d.  The subject begins with the accuser's emotion given a negative status with the word, "upset."

The sentence has the elements of location and of time. 

She was "upset when" and the location of "here."

It should be noted that this is a priority for the subject. 

She has a need to explain "why" the accuser was upset, without being asked.  This means that the subject anticipated a need for an explanation where no such explanation should be needed. 

Why is location important to the subject?

Is this the subject's private home?  It is not.  It is a location where she is an employee; not an owner, nor of a private residence.  This is important. 

Our subject has a need to place a negative emotion ("upset") upon the alleged victim (accuser) before she denies the allegation. 

Q. Is our subject holding to a priority of victim blaming?

A.  We wait to see if the subject, herself, will affirm (answer) or deny (negate) or not answer this question. Analysts let the subject guide them to the conclusion. 

We know that this is a priority for the subject:  that the alleged victim was upset at this location and prior to the alleged altercation. 

Next, notice how important the element of time is for our subject by the number of words she uses to denote it: 


"She was upset when she got here, because Ana Navaro was here instead of Joy. And after the segment, which ended when it was supposed to—it was not early, it was not late, it ended when it was supposed to—

The timing is very sensitive to the subject. She repeats words indicating time excessively.  She addresses it in the negative, increasing its importance to her. 

Why the need to separate time? 

Temporal Lacunae or "black, empty expanse" in the statement where there is missing information.  

It is as if,

time, time, time, time, time, time (6) is used. 

"And" beginning the sentence gives us a hint. This means there is some missing information between sentences. It is like listening to someone speak, having the audio cut and restored in a quick second of time. 

Here is the 7th emphasis upon time: 


she then called everybody at the table a name I cannot repeat on TV and said it in front of the audience. 

Note the order:

She did not say, "she called everybody at the table a name" but 

"she then called everybody at the table a name" 

This comes after missing information (TL above) and the order tells us it is in response to what the subject is withholding. 

This is to blame the victim. 

The subject began her statement, not with a reliable (or unreliable) denial, but to blame the victim (accuser) for:

a. having negative emotion 
b. indicating a need to explain why the victim had a negative emotion (without a statement to prove)
c. anticipate the question that in context would not have been asked, nor thought of
d. justifies that which will follow

Did you notice that "everybody" (a "crowd") has entered her statement before the pronoun "I"?

This not only affirms the blaming of another, but gives strong insight into the subject's dominant personality traits. 

The psychological profile, through the language identifies the subject's background, experiences, priority and personality traits. The PL profile not only yields much information in the analysis, but allows the investigator to know how to approach a subject. 

Did you notice that not only does our subject unite herself with "everybody at the table" but specifically identifies the "name" in the singular? 

The subject has now blamed the victim and set up her justification for her action.  This form of PL profiling is critical to therapists and psychologists who treat criminals, including pedophiles.  It is suggestive of prognosis for future change of behavior. 

"She was upset when she got here, because Ana Navaro was here instead of Joy. And after the segment, which ended when it was supposed to—it was not early, it was not late, it ended when it was supposed to—she then called everybody at the table a name I cannot repeat on TV and said it in front of the audience. 

The subject "cannot" repeat.  The external context is a comedienne known for using profanity. 

This is where the subject has now psychologically entered the statement, via the pronoun "I" here. She is now present in the statement where only the victim and time were dominant. 

What causes her to be restricted to identifying the word?

Next note the need to include the unnecessary information that it was "in front of the audience."

There are two points to examine:

1. The need for witnesses
2. The trigger 

The need for witnesses suggests habitual or personality driven deception. The subject wants to be believed but cannot stand upon her own word. She needs witnesses. 

The Trigger

That "everybody" was called a word includes our subject.

The information about being "in front of the audience" may be that the subject was humiliated by this word ("word" can be phrase). Humiliation is a powerful trigger for what follows.  If the subject perceived humiliation by this word, it would affirm:

a. blaming the victim
b. justification rather than denial, of the allegation. 

Also consider the moral supremacy factor:  

Is she morally above using such a word?
Is the word so terribly damning that it would insult "everybody"?
Is the word beyond her own baseline of profanity in her career?

Note that time continues to be very sensitive to the subject: 


When I came offstage, I went over there, because I was a little hot, okay? 

a. "when" is time
b.  "over there" is location 
c.  "Because" is the need to explain why without being asked.  This is the highest level of sensitivity in Statement Analysis. 

She has a need to explain why she went to a location which suggests to the analyst:

She went over for a different reason; one of which she is concealing. 

d.  "a little hot" compared to "upset" is a form of minimization through the weakness of being "a little" _____ emotion.  ("hot") whereas "she was upset" is much stronger. 

e. "okay?" is Ingratiation Factor. The subject has a need to persuade that she is "the good guy" and a need to be seen as "the good guy" specifically at this point of the statement where she is deceptive about going over to a specific location. This "need to persuade" tells us to the contrary. It is indicative of guilt that came after withheld information. 



So I went to calm down. 


The subject continues with this very sensitive coming together of two of the highest points of sensitivity together.  This is where we solve cases and learn the truth.  

Here is what it looks like without separation:


When I came offstage, I went over therebecause I was a little hot, okay? So I went to calm down. 

Deception Indicated.  She did not go to that specific location to clam down. She went to the contrary, she went to confront while being "hot" and will now affirm the blame upon her victim, rather than deny: 

She came off, 

Here we have some self editing ("she came off the stage..." etc) is just "she came off" which is likely leakage. If so, it affirms humiliation of "in front of the audience" which the subject could not, personality wise, bear: 


she could have just passed me, 

But she did not; shifting blame to the victim 


she didn’t need to stop, 


Victim blaming, whether a verbal altercation or another crime (consider the personality traits found in a male is more likely to lead to violence) 


but she stopped, 

It is not the subject's fault. All the victim had to do was keep walking.  

In this sense, "the victim asked for it." 


and put a finger in my face, and said, ‘I’ve done more for victims than you ever will.’"

Incongruence in Statement Analysis 

Communicative language is vital to understand dynamics.  

"she told me" is stronger than "she said", for example. 

"My boss said to be at work at 8" versus

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 8.

Did you notice the change from "said" to "told"?
Did you notice the body posture was added to the second, for emphasis 

The latter shows tension and a stronger form of communication, often one-way. 

"Said" is soft communication language. It is not expected after the build up of narrative language.  "Told", "yelled" or anything stronger would be congruent with the language of blame shifting. 

Incongruence can reveal scripted, rehearsed and deceptive answers.  

"Then I said to her some few choice words I cannot repeat. 

The incongruence continues with "said" along with minimization "some choice words" (plural v singular from the victim) and that she "cannot repeat" (moralizing or sermonizing). She is restricted from telling us what she said. 


Yes, I did say it, I did say it, but I did not spit on her,

Recall "okay?" is to ingratiate one into another, seeking to align or win the audience over (leakage tells us quite a bit more, outside the scope of basic analysis) 

"but I did not spit on her."

I believe the subject did not deliberately spit on the victim. If spitting took place, it was likely from the anger that we see through the minimization of the anger. The spitting would be incidental or "attendant" to the words she affirms:  "get the f*** out" from a building in which she felt empowered to take authority over.  

Next, we have a subjective term:

"I did not intimidate her" which is to measure impact of her presence. This is open to interpretation of what the victim felt (intimidated) which is the perception of the subject. 

Given the deception indicated thus far, we need to rely upon the rest of the statement to answer if this is true or not, but if insufficient, it would be in the interview. 

Did she "intimidate" the victim?

We now know that she did what she has been accused of, but minimizes it, via comparison, with the word "but."

This is not only minimization but further insight into her personality.  

The unreliability of the statement that began without the pronoun "I" and blamed the victim, suggests artificial conclusion. Let's see if it is in the words: 

 I did not intimidate her, 

begins strong, with "I" and "did not", though "intimidate" is very subjective.  What she says next helps us understand what she did:

no one chased her out of here saying get out,

The pronoun "I" is ejected, following the topic of intimidation, replace by "no one" for the subject.  

Note "chased her out of "here" (location) and saying "get out" is combined. She is not accused of saying "get out."  In her language, "no one" is accused of "chasing" her and saying "get out."

Now we understand the need to emphasize location and the need to explain "why" she went to this location.  

"No one" chased her out. She did not say, "I did not chase her out" for a reason. As she defends "no one" she immediately goes into rebuttal: 


 but she did leave here cursing at the people who booked the show, she cursed at the guys who do the security for the show."

the victim blaming justifies what the subject did. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

She did what she was accused of and may have inadvertently spit while yelling at the guest, knowing that her anger ("hot") and presence was very intimidating. 

Content Analysis

Whoopie Goldberg failed to obtain information from an invited guest while acting in the role of host. 

She had the full support of her audience and sought to not only squelch difference of opinion, but to satisfy her moral narcissism that craved to be seen as morally superior. 

She lost her temper and purposely went to the location where the guest would be walking. (insight into potential violence with the premeditation). 

She intimidated her guest. 

Intensity, size, proximity and countenance are all factors in intimidation. 

She exercised her perceived weight and authority at a work location to throw the victim out of a building she did not own, nor have legal authority over. 

Psycho-linguistic Profile

The profile is beyond the scope of this short analysis, but suggests:

a.  One who is habituated in deception; personality driven liar
b.  A Moral Narcissist and pragmatist 
c.  One who does not take personal responsibility for her actions and words
d.  One who is adept at manipulation 
e.  One who blames victims
f.  One who sees the world divided into two people: those who agree with her and those who do not. 
g.  Those who do not agree are held in contempt 
h. One with a very high opinion of her status and authority from wealth and fame, leaving her bereft of self awareness.  (elitism) 
i. The subject's prognosis for change is very low.  
j. In spite of a career of profanity, the subject is unable to bear insult.  This type of frailty (often in Narcissistic Personality Disorder) will attack when threatened, to protect the fragile ego, though it appears immense to others. 

A good argument can be made for potential violence, in spite of lesser testosterone. 

Deception Detection is a science in which 100% accuracy is both expected and routinely obtained after formal study, application and guided training. 

To sign up for your department, company or as an individual citizen, go to Hyatt Analysis Services, and look through the material leading to "get trained." 


34 comments:

Bobcat said...

The humiliating trigger word that she couldn't repeat, but was affirmed by her angry lashout?

Derangement.

Anonymous said...

I watched the clip and yes, Whoopi was probably more than aggressive for a cause.

She said something to the effect of: I'm tired of people starting a conversation stating Mexicans are liars and rapists.

WTH? I've never heard anyone say that. Has anyone else?

Pirro was also aggressive hoping to promote her political agenda claiming she's done more for victims (of what?) than Whoopi.

I doubt either one of them have ever lifted a finger, other than the middle one, for anyone other than themselves in their entire life.

That's the world today. Pirro should have brought her own security as she found out the hard way their security was only hired to protect their shows hosts.

It's a stitch-N-beotch show and Pirro knew that upfront. If she didn't, she shouldn't be surprised by what happened. She's kinda like that Ann whatshername that belittles others over an airplane seat and is obnoxious in most her rants over a political agenda.

Nasty women for nasty causes.

Mike Dammann said...

Analyze this:
"I admit, I admit, I'm a freak (freak)
Used to go to strip clubs every week
But who these niggas tryna say I am, man I'm loud and I put that on chief
I admit I fuck with all the ladies, that's both older and young ladies (ladies, yeah)
But tell me how they call it pedophile because that shit is crazy (crazy)
You may have your opinions, entitled to your opinions (opinions)
But really am I supposed to go to jail or lose my career because of your opinion
Yeah, go ahead and stone me, point your finger at me (stone me, yeah, yeah)
Turn the world against me, but only god can mute me (against me, mute me)"

Lucia D said...

I think having Goldberg invade your personal space, yelling at you and dropping f bombs would intimidate almost anyone. And she knows it. She probably uses this behavior to get her way, like a child throwing a tantrum. Pretty immature behavior for a supposedly sophisticated talk show host!

Peter Hyatt said...

The human understanding, once it has adopted opinions, either because they were already accepted and believed, or because it likes them, draws everything else to support and agree with them. And though it may meet a greater number and weight of contrary instances, it will, with great and harmful prejudice, ignore or condemn or exclude them by introducing some distinction, in order that the authority of those earlier assumptions may remain intact and unharmed.
–Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620

Mizzmarple said...

Judge Jeanine should have known she was walking straight into the lions' den by appearing on The View. The cohosts of The View are a bunch of very nasty, narcissistic women.

I have watched Judge Jeanine's show on a few occasions. I have never watched The View, but have seen promos and news about the show and its hosts.

Judge Jeanine has a much more professional approach with her guests who do not agree with her. But The View hosts - these women use brutal intimidation tactics and bully their guests with severe intimidation tactics if their guests do nit agree with their socialist political agenda.

Thank you, Peter, for this abalysis.

Mizzmarple said...

My apologies for the typos above.

Peter Hyatt said...

Here for understanding the cultish behavior, including trolling at this blog:

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/23/just-how-far-will-the-left-go/

Anonymous said...

She’s very large loud and scary. She might have appeared like out if control animal.

TimA said...

@Anon 12:59 PM -- Judge Jeanine spent 12 years as Assistant District Attorney for Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Bureau, Westchester County, NY; essentially she was a real life version of a Law and Order: SVU character.

John mcgowan said...

Great quote, Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

My political view is this:

You are best suited to decide your social life; not elected officials.

The more politicians stay out of our social lives, the more we get along.

The government is best suited for few things; including military, law enforcement, public & national safety etc.

The nature of government (elected officials who must have $ to run) is ill suited for Most every opinion.

The authority of government is lethal; it rightfully can incarcerate and it is armed.

Once armed (necessity) we should not want it to impose its views upon us.

We’re not Democrat and Republican anymore. We are fundamentally changed.

We are at war with nature and we are watching popular elitists, above the consequences of their views, attempting to impose them upon the rest of us.

Peter.

lynda said...

Anonymous said...
I watched the clip and yes, Whoopi was probably more than aggressive for a cause.

She said something to the effect of: I'm tired of people starting a conversation stating Mexicans are liars and rapists.

WTH? I've never heard anyone say that. Has anyone else?

Pirro was also aggressive hoping to promote her political agenda claiming she's done more for victims (of what?) than Whoopi.

I doubt either one of them have ever lifted a finger, other than the middle one, for anyone other than themselves in their entire life.

That's the world today. Pirro should have brought her own security as she found out the hard way their security was only hired to protect their shows hosts.

It's a stitch-N-beotch show and Pirro knew that upfront. If she didn't, she shouldn't be surprised by what happened. She's kinda like that Ann whatshername that belittles others over an airplane seat and is obnoxious in most her rants over a political agenda.

Nasty women for nasty causes

_________________________________

ITA with you anon. I can't stand either of these women. They are BOTH loud mouthed, aggressive, confrontational narcissists. They both have their own political agendas to push.
The only thing I don't agree with is that I for one, and anyone else who has a TV, has seen Mexicans called rapists. Um, the president himself has used the words Rapists, Murderers, Animals, Drug Dealers, criminals, Human Traffickers, expert mountain climbers (that makes me laugh0 "They're coming here to murder and slaughter your beautiful daughters" the list goes on.

Alex Norkova said...

Peter, I read the blog from Slovenia and also follow American politics. I am so happy for your country to have the leadership of Trump, a patriot for your country. I have heartache for the disrespect shown on the blog earlier and just wanted to lend you my support. Keep on speaking the Truth!

Lemon said...

" in spite of lesser testosterone. " hehehe

lynda said...

Molly Tibbetts, 20, has been missing 6 days from a small, rural town in Iowa. The last sighting of her was by a neighbor who saw her jogging around 5:30 PM. She has vanished.

FBI has now been called in. Tonight, they did an interview with her brother who stated:

“She had the biggest heart. If anyone needed it, she was willing to do anything,” said Jake, 21. “She hated to be sad and hated (for) others to be sad.”

“If Scott or I needed it, she’d send us a text. If we were having a tough time, she’d text us, ‘I love you guys,’" Jake said. "Scott and I aren’t the kind of people to think that way. In hindsight, I really appreciated that she was.”


“She ran in cross country and track and still ran five times a week. She didn’t have the most talent, but she tried the hardest,” he said. “Her talent was in speech and plays.

Her brother does not use the present tense ONCE, not ONCE in talking about Mollie.

What does that mean? Isn't that unusual?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Maybe this is just me, but if my daughter were involved in a verbal altercation and began with "She [Judge Piro] was upset when she got here...", I'd automatically think my daughter was lying about the extent of her involvement. First, Whoopi began with "She", and in the back of my mind I hear a little child going-"Well, SHE [obvious projection of the blame for whatever happened onto the other person]...". Secondly, Whoopi chose to start with the other person, not her own conduct nor a denial of the accusations against her. If she were truly innocent, her priority would be angrily denying the charge. Instead, she's actually verbally admitting she did abuse/intimidate guest, but attempts to justify and minimize her behavior as acceptable because "she [the other pary] was upset when she got here". Thirdly, the lack of proper social introduction wasn't just rude, it was contemptuous. Whoopi is well aware Jeanine Piro is a bona fide judge, as well as an invited guest of the show.

I'm a little curious why Whoopi didn't say, "She was already upset when she got here". I would have expected to hear the word "already", had the judge been upset upon arrival. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing that word was missing because Whoopi was lying about the Judge being already upset.

It's one thing to disagree with someone, even passionately. It's a totally different animal to be so aggressive to someone and in such close physical proximity that it would even appear that you spit on them (accidentally or otherwise). I'm not buying what Whoopi's selling here.

Anonymous said...

“Lowland gorilla attacks retired judge.” . You won’t see this headline.

Anonymous said...

Is the inclusion of other brother equivalent to a “we”?

“She didn’t have the most talent”

Subtle disparaging?

Anonymous said...

This seems unexpected, too:

“They haven’t found anything, so as far as I know, she is alive,” Jake said.

lynda said...

Anon said..

“She didn’t have the most talent”

Subtle disparaging?

___________________________

I caught that too. It seems a weird thing to say about your sister when she's missing, not to mention that everything he says is past tense. It's not like he slips and says something past tense..his whole conversation, every word used is past tense.
I just find this so odd because in other SA that has been analyzed, it is most always a "slip of the tongue" from the suspect/guilty knowledge party that happens when a past tense verb is used, whereas here, the brother speaks of her as if she's been dead for years and is reminiscing.
Mollie remains missing.

Skeptical said...

Watching The View is like watching elderly "mean girls". Life is too short to give them any of my time.

Peregrine said...

Foolsfeedandfolly,
I too, am interested in the missing Mollie Tibbetts case and question the brother Jake's involvement. (The boyfriend says some things that also strike me odd like,“I’ve never seen her do anything like an act to hurt anybody ever”. Why bring up her hurting anyone? It doesn't appear he was asked if she had enemies so if you can pick anything to talk about her why make that comment a priority?) I have a Facebook connection to Mollie's mother through a former co-worker so I'm watching to see if anything behind the scenes is being posted. Contrary to Mollie's boyfriend who says he's optimistic and believes she'll be home soon, sadly I don't think she'll be found alive.

lynda said...

Peregrine said...
Foolsfeedandfolly,
I too, am interested in the missing Mollie Tibbetts case and question the brother Jake's involvement. (The boyfriend says some things that also strike me odd like,“I’ve never seen her do anything like an act to hurt anybody ever”. Why bring up her hurting anyone? It doesn't appear he was asked if she had enemies so if you can pick anything to talk about her why make that comment a priority?) I have a Facebook connection to Mollie's mother through a former co-worker so I'm watching to see if anything behind the scenes is being posted. Contrary to Mollie's boyfriend who says he's optimistic and believes she'll be home soon, sadly I don't think she'll be found alive

______________________________________

I have to agree with you. 6 days, no word. FBI has called off search and the brothers interview is completely whacked. I have no idea what his motive would be, or if he is covering for someone else but it cannot be disputed that he talks as if she's been dead and gone for yearsss!

Anonymous said...

lynda said...

Molly Tibbetts, 20, has been missing 6 days from a small, rural town in Iowa. The last sighting of her was by a neighbor who saw her jogging around 5:30 PM. She has vanished.

FBI has now been called in. Tonight, they did an interview with her brother who stated:

“She had the biggest heart. If anyone needed it, she was willing to do anything,” said Jake, 21. “She hated to be sad and hated (for) others to be sad.”



“If Scott or I needed it, she’d send us a text. If we were having a tough time, she’d text us, ‘I love you guys,’" Jake said. "Scott and I aren’t the kind of people to think that way. In hindsight, I really appreciated that she was.”


“She ran in cross country and track and still ran five times a week. She didn’t have the most talent, but she tried the hardest,” he said. “Her talent was in speech and plays.

Her brother does not use the present tense ONCE, not ONCE in talking about Mollie.

What does that mean? Isn't that unusual?

This is could be a habit of his, It could be the passage of time 6 days +. It could be that LE have called of all searches and ask to suspend all FB pages and alluded to the possibility they;re now looking at a recovery and he feels the worse has happened. Is she, or has she ever contemplated suicide? What was her mental state before she went missing? I agree it is unusual i, however, wouldn't put to much emphasis on it.

-jc

Anonymous said...

Boyfriend of missing Iowa woman vows to 'never stop' searching

I had nothing to do with it

We love you and we're looking for yeah and wer're gunna never gunna stop"


https://www.youtube.com/embed/YBQ8pghoKuA/?autoplay=1&rel=0&showinfo=1



....

her brother

"You never think that you would see your sister on a poster with a missing sign right across it"


Just a normal like dropped her off at her boyfriends that was about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymxwpfiZ06g

-jc

John mcgowan said...

Special Statement Regarding The Deorr Kunz Case, By Philip R. Klein, President :

This morning after consulting with counsel - we have made the decision to make all of the original interviews of the parents and related family members public.

We are in the process today of purchasing a website in order to have a platform for you, the public, to watch the videos in their entirety and unedited. We believe that you the public have a right to know the truth of what was said and not rely upon, the silly and frivolous, not to mention outright lies that have been broadcasted by some in the media and in social media.

We have always said : "The Truth Is The Ultimate Defense." It is - it always has been - it always will be. We would like to publicly thank the US Department of Justice FBI in Texas, Arizona, and Idaho for their continued professionalism.

These videos have been released to the national media for their broadcast for a show regarding the case.

We further announced today after a review of this case and other issues that will be announced at a later date - we fully anticipate filing a countersuit.

We thank the public for their understanding - and support of what our dedicated investigators and personal protection officers do daily. None of them have deserved the outright mischaracterization of what we do daily and in the Kunz case.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1793902667358976&id=443864945696095

Anonymous said...

Updated info on the missing girl Mollie.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Iowa/comments/91x4to/missing_from_brooklyn_ia_please_share/

Anonymous said...

Those two subjects, missing Iowa girl and Kunz missing, is popping up in stalking videos.

Perhaps that's a prelude-or premonition-to what is about to go down.

Either that, or it's a last ditch effort to get victims to join this camp or that.

Dr. soulessdead picked up Iowa.

Some proselytizer will pick up Kunz, surely.

MJM said...

I think Whoopi's weight is *real*, not "perceived"...

Peter Hyatt said...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33712/erickson-road-hell-paved-withstraws-erick-erickson

Understanding the religious nature of humans.

ima.grandma said...

It’s a telling topical article. I had to look up a few of the words. The entire site is thought provoking. Thanks, I think I’ll spend some time reading there.

Peter Hyatt said...

Humor aside, children have a way of awakening new parents to the truth of human nature.

My hope is that human nature, its belief system and needs, will be viewed by analysts as "ideology", including all overt religious belief.

They can better grasp crime, how it is in the language (personality) and turn this powerful lens inward. Most do.

I hope to address some observations of higher education next week. By "higher education", I mean Ivy League graduate and post graduate level in Statement Analysis training.

Also, I have 2 guest submissions upcoming.

Some interesting material.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Con't

With the religious nature of humans, it helps to understand why:

a. Some become readily involved in a "cause" which dominates their lives.

Whether it be "justice for Maddie McCann", for example, or whether it be to "save" something in nature, or food ("vegan" often becomes not only religious, but extremism in intolerance and even violence) to other soft targets for clever politicians.

"Make America Great" is a good cause.
Saving dwindling wildlife is a good cause.
Making money is a good cause.

Yet, they can become dominant, out of focus and we, as humans, attempt to establish our "god" in bowing, serving, and converting others, at the expense of living life.

It fills a void every human has.

Anything can become poisoned by us.

Peter