Thursday, November 15, 2018

Michael Avenatti Denies Domestic Violence

Michael Avenatti was arrested, charged with felony domestic assault.  

He issued the following statement:

"First of all, I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today.  They had no option given the allegations.
Secondly, I have Neve struck a women, never will strike I woman. I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate. I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing. I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters. I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman,. I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.

Lawyers advise their clients to be silent; yet few follow their own counsel. 

Here we are given a great deal of information about the subject. 

Analysis Question: Did he assault the victim?

"First of all, 

He begins with a numeric, not the pronoun "I", which tells us that logic is in play.  This means he has put considerable thought into this statement. With "first", we seek a "second" to affirm this pre thought and care. 

I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today.  They had no option given the allegations.

Note the "Ingratiation Factor" of statement analysis plain example. He literally thanks those who arrested him.  

He not only thanks them, but specifies gender.  

He ingratiates himself to police;
He ingratiates himself to women.

This is an indication of manipulation as well as a sensitivity indicator for possible guilt. 

Secondly, I have never struck a women, never will I strike a woman. 

Unreliable Denial.

The accusation is singular and it is limited to a specific victim at a specific time. 

"Never" is to avoid saying, "I did not" or "I didn't."  This is "not reliable."

Yet, with "never" in context of a specific allegation, specific victim and specific time, it is "Unreliable" as it uses the time spanning vagueness of "never" in avoidance of the specific details of the allegation. 

This continues with the address of the victim also avoided:

"...a woman" and not "the" woman, or "the alleged victim."

This is why it is "Unreliable" rather than "not reliable."  Had the allegations been of several women over a period of indeterminate time, it would be "not reliable" at this point. 

Yet, he reveals much more about himself and the event as he continued to talk: 

I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate.

"The Good Guy" portrayal, like "the good mother" is a need to portray oneself as "good", often revealing the opposite.  

Instead of being in the right, he has a need to persuade his audience rather than stand upon the strength of "being" a good guy because he did not do this. 

He is "The Good Guy" here, increasing sensitivity of the Unreliable Denial, but he is not finished yet: 

 I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing. 

He is a victim. 

He is being "intimidated" by someone into "stopping what he is doing."

Who stopped him?

Was it the victim?

Was it the police?

He is speaking with intellect engaged (logic from the numerics) and revealing himself as a very highly manipulative personality type. 

In other words, the subject is comfortable manipulating his audience. 

His specific audience is addressed within his statement:  women. 

This is a signal of contempt for women. 

I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters.

He does not "have" two daughters, but is a "father to" them.  He affirms his contempt as a father with "smart" added.  This is an unnecessary part of his statement and only increases the sensitivity of his Unreliable Denial. It indicates distance between himself and his daughters.  

It is here that we learn, perhaps, something unknown about the subject: 

 I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman. 

The subject has a likely history of "inappropriate" touching, which may prove to be sexual. 

Note he gives his reason why he "would never" do this.  Not that it is wrong and not that it harms victims (human empathy) but it would "disrespect" his daughters. 

This notion of sexual assault may be why the word "full" is now repeated: 

I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated

The subject issues an Unreliable Denial of the domestic violence. 

He reveals a highly manipulative personalty type with low human empathy. 

He reveals contempt for his audience, specifically women, as those he can most readily manipulate.  

Misogyny is sometimes linguistically evident in "virtue signaling" of guilt.

It is evident here. 

A "full" investigation may bring forth more victims.  Not only does his denial fail, but he reveals more about himself than he likely intended. 

It is why attorneys advise their clients to be silent. 

That he is ego driven is not only from his intellect, but his dominant personality traits.  His contempt for women includes the exploitation of his daughters for his personal protection.  

His guilt is acute and goes beyond this one allegation. 


soulsurfer said...

" a woman" is also interesting, since the allegations come from his wife or Ex wife ( if I am correct) ! Maybe she does not have the status of a woman in his dictionary! It also adds to the vagueness of the indefinite article! He never hit a woman but maybe he did hit his (ex) - wife!

Peter Hyatt said...

This is a fair evaluation. For whatever reason, the victim is not only “a”, but may be, in his perception, “not a woman.”

How might we know?

We might learn if the victim speaks out.

Good observation; you’re listening.


Bobcat said...

Does he see women as 'equipment' to be used?

Trigger said...

Avenatti's use of the term "smart" daughters gave me chills. Considering the seriousness of the accusations, this comes off as an imbedded threat and/or a way to remind them to keep silent.

Did his daughters experience violence from him or see him use threats of violence to cover up sexual abuse?

I feel afraid for his daughters...really afraid.

LuciaD said...

I too, found it telling that he added inappropriate touching to his unreliable denial. An attempt to preempt further allegations he knows may be coming? Avenatti uses the words struck, strike, and striking in his denial. Could it be that he didn't "strike" the woman, but pushed, choked, or grabbed her?

His wife is saying she isn't the one making the allegations. This is going to be interesting.

John Mc Gowan said...

I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman,

To use his daughters this way along side the worrying language concerns me deeply.

Trigger said...

I can't help but think that Avenatti's two daughters have been threatened verbally. Such as, "If you're "smart" you will keep your mouth shut about this." or "If you know what's good for you, you will keep your mouth shut about this."

Avenatti also states that he will not be intimidated. This is his most important point that he wants us to know about him. This was a red flag to me that he has a "top dog/underdog" attitude towards women and uses intimidation or bullying to get what he wants from women, when all else fails. He doesn't like women or want them to have any power over him.

This guy gives me the creeps.

Trigger said...

I agree, John.

There are indications that his daughters are exempt from his use of the term "women."

Unknown said...

" I am looking forward "
He has no faith in the present as currently he lacks solutions to get him out of this one. He expresses faith based on professional history being able to somehow handle it.

Unknown said...

Stating that his daughters are "smart" may also indicate a general opinion of females regarding being the opposite. Why wouldn't the children be smart? They have a lawyer for a father. Usually those I hear bragging about their children's intelligence have been people from lower educational backgrounds. He feels a strong need to convince everyone that he values females as his equal. And that is likely an indicator that he doesn't.

John Mc Gowan said...

Anonymous Trigger said...
I agree, John.

There are indications that his daughters are exempt from his use of the term "women."


it ("a" women) reminds me (i'm not making a leap here) of the SA principle of that no Father can molest his own child.

Willow said...

"They had no option given the allegations."

Avenatti uses the word option/no option as if the police could and maybe would have wanted to react by not arresting him.

A. takes it for granted that the police is siding with him and his story,
but "given the allegations" they were compelled to take action and make the arrest.

Unknown said...

The language indicates bias towards females. It is similar to someone referring to a person of color as "he was well-spoken". If you were for example to meet Peter in real life, you wouldn't likely emphasize on him being well-spoken as you would expect him to be.

Anonymous said...

In respect to his daughters, he says, ""I would never disrespect them by touching a woman..." Would he or has he disrespected them in other ways?

Following on from this he says, "by touching a woman inappropriately (which is unnecessary language but necessary to him to say it and could be leakage) or striking a woman." Order speaks to priority. He was charged with felony domestic assault. he distinguishes between "touching" and "striking." Given the nature of his alleged crime, his first thought is "touching" whereas "striking" appears secondary which could be unexpected given the circumstances of the charge.

With respect to the investigation, he says, "I am confident that I will be..." He isn't. The fact he has to say "I am confident" suggests otherwise. He has a need to say this which is unnecessary and appears to be a need to persuade or convince. "I am confident" leaves open the possibility that others may not be confident. If he didn't do anything, there is no need to use the word "confident." He has a need to say it.

He finally adds, "I will be fully exonerated." The word fully seems unnecessary. You're either exonerated or not. "Fully" weakens the assertion. This could also speak to his priority of "touching" followed by "striking." Maybe there is more to this than has been reported so far.

Why not simply say, "I didn't do it" or "allegation specific." He almost seems to be using logic and emotion. He knows what he is doing. Intelligent, aware and manipulative.

Nadine Lumley said...

I believe Lisa was quickly paid off, soon after the TMZ story came out. She must have got a sweet deal financially.

TMZ is def. open for negotiations as well. They make more money from squashing stories than they do publishing ones.


Nadine Lumley said...

Twitter says that it was reported Michael said that he didn't hit first, which makes him sound like he hit second...


General P. Malaise said...

"I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman."

the "touching a woman inappropriately" came from his language (unless it was part of the criminal charge) and before the "striking".

and "touching" came before "inappropriate" YIKES !

Anonymous said...

"I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman."

I take his comments that he places his daughters above all other women and of course they are smart because they are his off spring. He wouldn’t disrespect his daughters but that doesn’t say he wouldn’t disrespect other women.

I always felt he was only interested in winning and not really the fight. His arrogance that he could run for president based solely on popularity says a lot about his personality.

Trigger said...

The qualifier "I would never" means a future event which exempts a past event... deception indicated.

New England Water Blog said...

There is also the comment he was alleged to have made at the time of his arrest;" This is bullshit , she hit me first." Lock 'em up boys...

LC said...

Aside from his public statement, I read a report about what the officers heard Avenatti say at the time of his arrest. Allegedly, Avenatti claims "She hit me first".
His excited utterance contains a bit of leakage, no?

Anonymous said...

I can’t seem to find this exact statement, word for word, online. Do you have a source link? Thank you

Anonymous said...

Found it

John Mc Gowan said...

From what i have listened to, it's the journalists who ask, can you tell us who the woman was, one says did she hit you first, and then, what sounds like another journalist, asked did she strike you first.

Alex said...

It does sound to me as though the journalist is asking the question. It is hard to separate from the other voices and it sounds as though he had to ask twice because he was interrupted.


Trigger said...

I read in that Avenatti's exwives are defending him.

All I can think is... follow the money.

Unknown said...

Really interesting article, thanks for that !

I agree with you, I find it odd to start your speech by thanking those who are putting you behind bars. Also, what i thought was interesting is the way he speaks about his daughters, being "beautiful and smart" . I think the fact he said beautiful BEFORE smart says a lot about his view on woman. I do think he is not lying when saying he would never disrespect them, but i think it's simply because he does not believe that striking or touching a woman would disrespect his daughters, he probably sees them as special or maybe it is that he thinks that whatever was done was right.

He says he will be exonorated but that does not mean he's not guilty of whatever fault he's being charged with. He never says so, he never says he is not guilty.

I found the "a woman" to be evasive as well, as if he was detaching from the victim. The thing is, saying "the" would be worst , while saying "the victim" would imply he's guilty so he's pretty stucked there.

It's also an odd choice to say that he never will strike a woman. I mean, you don't know that. People would normally say i never would, which would cover it all. Mehh, maybe it's just me !

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

He begins with "First of all..."- Priority signalling. I would expect this from most people, but especially from an attorney. He makes his living stating his case and attempting to persuade his audience (judge/jury). I expect him to logically and systematically "lay out his case" and support his position with evidence on each point. He loses systematically laying out his case the third sentence into his second point ("I am not going to be intimidated into stopping what I'm doing."). He did not make an assertion that the accusation is a attempt (overt or covert) to derail/destroy his advocacy. He then moves to include/use his daughters when he should be citing numerous examples of his advocacy for women from cases he has won, particularly given that he has won a number of high profile cases involving women clients.

He uses 116 words in his statement, when he actually only needs 5- "I did not _______ her."

"I have never struck a woman..."- This may be a true statement in his perception of events. He may have used an object to strike her; he may have thrown an object that struck her. He may not have struck her, but pushed/shoved her and caused her to strike something, resulting in her injuries. He may have choked or slapped/smacked her-neither of which he may consider "striking/struck". What is his definition of striking?

There is only one known victim at this time, so he may have in mind one particular woman when he spoke ("a woman"). However, I would expect to hear "this woman" or "that woman" or "her", as this allegation is both personally directed at him and professionally damaging to his high-profile career (a serious threat to his livelihood). Given both his background (1st in his class at George Washington Law School and a professional race car driver), I would expect the accusation to challenge his competitive personality and produce "that woman" or "her"- specific language. I think his statement "I'm not going to be intimidated..." does belie his competitive personality. That he introduces intimidation, coupled with his competitive personality and career choice, is the language of bullying and abuse.

The need to introduce his fatherhood, as evidence to strengthen his argument,actually weakens his argument. It's similar to the pedophile implying that he can't be a pedophile because he's a "happily married man"- as if one automatically precludes the other. The disturbing thing in Avenatti's case though, is that he goes beyond the scope of a man-woman/husband-wife relationship to "make his case". He goes to the father-daughter relationship. That's alarming to me, especially in close verbal proximity to his "touching a woman inappropriately" listed first in his defensive argument in the same sentence. What is his definition of a woman? He introduces his daughters, who are teenagers, as his defense. Notice who he doesn't use to support his position; either of his wives (one ex, one estranged). I would be concerned about who he has been touching inappropriately.

"I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated."-Exonerated is to clear from accusation or blame. It does not mean the accused is innocent of the charges, or innocent. One can be exonerated if he can convince a judge/jury of reasonable doubt...but still be guilty of the offense or another offense (uncharged). He does not say those 5 magic words, "I did not _______ her." He employs legal terminology, prevaricating on innocence....weak statement. He attempts to appear confident with "I am looking forward to..."only to be undermined by "a full investigation" and "fully exonerated". In a trial, the accused is either exonerated (judged innocent)or they are not (judged guilty)-there are not degrees of exoneration.

Unknown said...

The daughters comment reminded me of this from Serena Williams screaming at the umpire:

'You owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what is right for her and I've never cheated. You owe me an apology.

Willow said...

"The daughters comment reminded me of this from Serena Williams screaming at the umpire:"

There were stories of a female tennis-star having blurted out some years ago publicly that Serena and her coach Patrick Muratoglou are/were a pair.

'You owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what is right for her and I've never cheated. You owe me an apology.'

Apology is demanded by S. To suppress guilt?
Apology comes twice at the beginning and the end.

'I have never cheated in my life' is an absurdity. No one gets through her life to adulthood without ever cheating somewhere.

'I have a daughter' has no function in this context, though. Why is it here at the third important place in the same sentence w 'I've never cheated', which is repeated, and weaker for it?

'Why is I have a daughter' there at all?

New England Water Blog said...

SA experts, let me ask for some help. I got this email via criagslist seeking to buy an instrument I have for sale well below its fair market value. I have reason to suspect that this is a dealer using this as a means to "score". Any advice? Thanks.


Any chance you would sell this Yanagisawa soprano sax for $1000 (payment via PayPal or??)??

My daughter is a NYU music performance major and, as a doubler, is in need of a good quality soprano sax.
We have already purchased professional Bb and A clarinets, 2 flutes, piccolo and alto sax, and now looking to add a soprano sax, and possibly Eb and bass clarinets, (on top of college tuition and NYC rent!!).

Would need to have it shipped to our home in Spring, TX (zip 77379... how much would shipping cost?) to make sure someone will be home to receive the package (my daughter will be home for winter break, so slow ground shipment is fine). (She lives in an apartment in NYC and, with her crazy schedule, would be afraid to leave the package laying around the building...)

Thank you for your consideration.

Unknown said...

Here is something else I have noticed:
"I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing."
This part:
"I am not going to be"
This is future tense. Not present. He didn't state "I am not intimidated".
That tells me that in fact he is intimidate at this point.

LC said...

I think both Avenatti and Serena included their daughters in their statements as a badge of character, so to speak. Pointing out that they have children are irrelevant in both instances.

Unknown said...

the mentioning of the children could come from a couple of reasons.

it could be piggybacking on the innocence of the children or more likely they are acutely conscious of their guilt and see humiliation in their children's eyes toward themselves. they bring them up in their linguistic perception of reality.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic:

This story reminds me of the McCann's continued profitable hoax.

Jessica Ericzon died in 2008 two days after receiving her 3rd Gardasil injection. She had no adverse reactions to the injections, and her cause of death was "undetermined", but her mother and stepfather/live in boyfriend have blamed Gardasil and even accepted a $200,000 settlement from Merck.

Their statements:

"Tim Hall" (man in the house)

"This is a post that is meant to be shared with everyone you can think of. Our 17 year old daughter went to the doctor. The doctor recommended the Gardasil vaccine. We needed to check it out first. A pamphlet was brought home and we read it. It was like one of those commercials we all see every day. Soo...upon the return visit we decided we would protect our beautiful daughter from cervical cancer by letting them administer the Gardasil vaccine. The Gardasil vaccine is a series of 3 shots, not just one. !!! After the first shot we didn't recognize a sudden change in her health. After the second shot she was complaining of headaches, a pain in the lower left back of her head, and feeling really tired,her joints ached. We thought it was because she was training really hard for high school sports. We took her back to the family doc who told us it was just stress and suggested Tylenol. She went in for the third shot of Gardasil,made by Merck. The next day Jess was supposed to go to the local college and be there by 10 a.m. She was taking college courses in high school,she was a perfectly healthy kid, a brainiac,and totally knew what she wanted in life and knew how to get there.
We came home from work, Lisa and i work together. It was quiet but the bathroom light was on,we thought she was taking a shower she didn't come out for a few minutes. Finally Lisa knocked on the door and slowly opened it and started screaming. It was the most horrific thing i have ever seen and i was a firefighter for years. It was obvious she had been gone for awhile.
All we really had to go on was the Gardasil vaccine. Within a few days we were contacted by the coroner,he told us she died instantly but could not tell us why. He said it would take 10 weeks to get our answer as to why she was suddenly dead from the forensic team. we finally got the same answer 11 weeks later, we don't know why???????????????????????????????????????????
It didn't matter at that point, we had done our own investigating. Actually the next day we knew in our hearts that the Gardasil killed her. We looked it up on line. at that time in 2008 there were 8 reported deaths. we found out about the ingredients in vaccines. we learned about the way vaccines are approved,we learned the use of the word cancer caused the FDA and the CDC to fast track the approval of Gardasil. Instead of years of proper testing it was approved within months and many, many dollars changed hands. It wasn't long before we started hearing very very similar stories from all over the world. It is what we think to be the GREATEST vaccine hoax in the history of time. And we are right here in the canter of it all. Lisa`, even though she has been torn apart by this, is totally convinced that this ain't over,this is not over by a long shot. Our 17 year old daughter died very suddenly 40 hours after her Gardasil vaccine."

Anonymous said...

Mother Lisa's statement:

"I guess I will start with Jessie’s first Doctor’s visit where we went because of Jessie’s acne. She had heard that sometimes birth control pills did wonders for acne. So in April of 2007 we went to the Family doctor. At this appointment she was put on the birth control pill Yazmin. Her Doctor did mention the Gardasil vaccine and what it was for, but they didn’t push it at all. Jessie and I decided that we would take the pamphlet home and read it first, before we made a decision. On July 16, 2007 we went back to the Doctor for a re-check on her progress with the birth control pill and her acne which was clearing up quite nicely. We decided then to go ahead with her first Gardasil vaccination. I thought I was doing the best for Jessie, I mean who wouldn’t want to do everything they could to prevent any kind of cancer when it came to their kids.
Side effects were discussed and it was the usual nausea, fever, headache, same as if you were to get a flu shot. If I had known at the time that there was even the slightest chance of death, I would have never allowed Jess to have the shot. There were no side effects after her first shot. We went in on September 17, 2007 for her second vaccination. The only complaint that she had was that it hurt to get the shot. I’m not sure when Jessie started complaining about her head hurting, plus she was always tired and her joints ached. She even felt dizzy once in a while. I did write in my diary on October 23, 2007 that she complained of a very severe headache. She spoke once in awhile of a spot on the back of her head that bothered her. She felt like it was a tumor, but I felt nothing when I checked.
On November 20, 2007 I took her to the same family Doctor who prescribed her 2 previous vaccinations to check on why she could be having these headaches. He felt nothing and said it may be due to stress that she is having headaches and she was to take some Tylenol when needed. At no point in this conversation did side effects and Gardasil come up, it didn’t occur to me or obviously the Doctor that Gardasil could have anything to do with it. After that visit she was still tired and her joints still ached and a few headaches here and there, I attributed the joint ache to Cheerleading as she was a base and did a lot of lifting. In February 2008, 18th-24th, Jessie was on a winter break from school, but she did take Distance Learning Classes thru the local community college. A few days that week Jess went to her school to practice pitching for the upcoming softball season. She loved to pitch and practiced as much as she could."

continued below

Anonymous said...

continued from above

"On February 20, about 5pm Jess had her 3rd Gardasil vaccination and everything was fine until the night before she died, when Jess and I were sitting on the couch playing a Sudoku game on her laptop, Jessie said the spot on the back of her head hurt again. I told her to take a couple of Tylenol and hopefully she would feel better in the morning. At 9pm I kissed her goodnight and told her I loved her and went to bed. My other half Tim and I work at the same hospital so we left at about 5:10 that Friday morning February 22, 2008 and Jess was sleeping as usual. When we got home from work around 3:20 pm, I found Jessie dead on the bathroom floor.
The shock to my body and brain are nothing I ever want to experience again. Although I relive them everyday of my life now. I see the blue of her eyes which were open slightly as if she were watching me as I lay on the bathroom floor with her knowing there was nothing I could do for her. When the troopers showed up Tim said I did mention the fact that Jessie had the Gardasil vaccination although I don’t remember. I do remember telling someone about the pain in the back of her head before she went to bed. The next morning the Medical Examiner, Dr Livingstone called me to tell me they found no reason for Jessie’s death.
He said she was dead before she hit the floor. I do remember telling him about the 3rd Gardasil vaccination she had just had not 2 days ago. He said that he had not heard of any negative findings with Gardasil. After that Tim went home (as we were staying with my dad across the road) and Googled Gardasil. The information that came up was devastating to me. I felt I had killed my daughter. I will stop here because the rest is basically much grief and much research. Respectfully, Lisa Ericzon."

Anonymous said...

It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Unknown said...

Blogger Bobcat said...
Off Topic:

This story reminds me of the McCann's continued profitable hoax.

Bobcat there are many horror stories out about Gardasil. Japan tells its citizens not to have it after serious complications were experienced in Japan.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I didn't do it.

That's what's I was expecting to read. What a leap to read that he's thanking the people who arrested him. I expected a tone of anger for being accused of something he didn't do. Who looks forward to a full investigation? And the pavement of his daughters using them as a shield. Shameful. Disgraceful. Despicable.

Anonymous said...


Bobcat said...

Here is another Jessica Ericzon statement from her parent(s):

"this facebook page exists because we came home one day to find our daughter dead on the bathroom floor. the only thing that could have caused it is the Gardasil Vaccine. a perfectly healthy 17 year old, honor roll student,all-star athlete, never a medical problem in her life. Yet 40 hours after her Gardasil vaccine she drops dead. And the coroner tells us he has no idea why she died. This was our answer, our reason, "she died instantly but we can't tell you why." so we search Gardasil because its all we had to go on. What we read was like a book of horrors! This was in 2008 and 8 girls had been reported as deaths.(Only one in ten is reported). now its over 100 girls and 3 boys, yes they give it to boys now too. so we fight on, every day. the government conveniently passed a law on 1986 stating you can't take legal action against a pharmaceutical company for a vaccine injury. The government protects them and feeds there poison to the entire population. We have all been poisoned with aluminum,mercury and countless other poisons our entire lives. So we become educated, we become aware. So we look at other aspects of our lives like food, and find out even that, the foundation of our being is poison as well. Thank GOD we smartened up. Its really too bad it took losing everything we existed for to realize it."

Bobcat said...

One more OT confirming the positive relationship indicated between the mother of Jessica Ericzon and the coroner. Jessica's mother worked in the morgue.

"When our 17 year old daughter went to her doctor about her severe acne problem he suggested the Gardasil vaccine. He never mentioned the side effects or the number of injuries or deaths from the vaccine. We did get a brochure from Merck telling about the vaccine. Lisa and Jess looked it over and were sold, "this will protect her from getting Cervical cancer". Soo they went ahead and started the shots which is a series of 3 vaccines. After the first vaccine Jess started complaining of headaches, she was always tired and felt terrible. After the second vaccine she complained about the pain in her lower left of the back of her head. We felt for a bump or something and sent her back to the same doctor. Nothing stood out to him and he attributed it to her busy athletic schedule and stress and said to take Tylenol for the pain. So the third shot was given right on schedule as planned anyway and a day later she died--instantly. She dropped dead. The coroner said she was dead before she hit the floor. Sound graphic? IT WAS! The coroner also said there was no way as far as he could tell it was the vaccine. But no reason was given. Your daughter died suddenly and we don't know why. Sooooo.... we were told we would have to wait 10 weeks for the results of her further testing, which meant they would take her brain and heart and other organs. This alone was horrifying especially because Lisa cleans those same instruments at her job. Arrangements were made and now the morgue instruments are cleaned after she leaves. After the ten weeks were finally up, it seemed like years. We got the same answer. No proof ,no cause. !!!!!!?????
Maybe we watched too much CSI on TV or something but no answer was just not acceptable. There has to be a reason! C'mon! So by the time the ten weeks was up we had already researched it on-line and found there were 8 deaths already reported , now over 150. Only 1 in 10 are actually reported. At the time which was 2008 i believe there were 6,800 something adverse reactions, now there are over 26,000 of them. Again, only 1 in 10 are ever reported. The day i showed Lisa the info she looked it over very carefully and said to me SHE KNEW THIS IS WHAT KILLED HER DAUGHTER,. Thats all i needed to set out on a crusade to find the answer we needed and to have justice for her senseless death.And here we are 5 plus years later still bangin our heads on the walls of the FDA< the CDC and the major big pharmaceutical companies. After doing hours and hours of searching we found that we all have been test subjects for all medications the drug companies come out with, they can test and study all the subjects they want, payoff the government, buy all the politicians, give money to all the researchers,etc...etc...etc... They never really know a drug or vaccine even works until they release it into the world population. They have more money than any country or all the countries combined .
Soooo.... Jessica Faye Ericzon, we will NEVER.....EVER....give up our crusade to find out what killed you! And when we do find out all of the other mothers,daughters,and their families will seek justice. And when GOD has proven to us that he sees all,the world will be a better place."

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...


Oh dear, lol

In context, yes.

Answers question that not asked. I agree.

Using a tangent. I agree.

The remainder, well..

"The Truth About Liars" - "Dr".Phil (clip)

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

April 14, 2015

OT Update:

Stepfather now facing murder charges in 2015 death of AJ Hadsell

NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) -- The adoptive stepfather of a Norfolk teen found dead after being reported missing in 2015 has been officially indicted on first-degree murder charges.

On Monday, a grand jury indicted Wesley Paul Hadsell, 40, on one count of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree felony murder and one count of a felony concealment of a dead body in connection to the death of his adopted daughter, 18-year-old Anjelica "AJ' Hadsell, according to the Norfolk Police Department.

Statement Analysis: AJ Hadsell's Biological Father

April 14, 2015

Does the biological father have an idea of what happened to AJ?

We know:

No suspect has been named in AJ's murder.
Her adoptive father, Wesley Hadsell, was arrested for breaking into a home and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors have remained closed lipped about details.

Wesley Hadsell claims that he was doing his own investigation. Statement Analysis of his interviews show:

1. Knowledge or belief that AJ was deceased prior to her remains being found.
2. Combative, violent language
3. Possible sexual abuse connection of AJ, perhaps even going back to when AJ was a 12 or 13 year old child.
4. Language of domestic violence and control issues.
5. A refusal or unwillingness to deny causing AJ's disappearance.
6. Deception indicated regarding tangent issues; likely stemming from the investigation.
7. Language of a pathological or habitual liar (from childhood).
8. Need to persuade that he was 'helpful' in the search for AJ, highlighting the very opposite of helpful: obstructive.

On the Nancy Grace Show, early in the case:

John Mc Gowan said...


Avenatti Accuser Reveals Details of Alleged Assault, Says it Wasn’t the First Time

Court documents have revealed new details of the domestic violence allegations against Michael Avenatti. Records show that actress Mareli Miniutti has been granted a restraining order against the attorney, and provided some more insight into what she claims happened, TMZ reported.

According to the documents, Miniutti claims that she and Avenatti had been arguing over money on November 13, when he allegedly called her an “ungrateful f**king bitch,” before hitting her in the face with pillows, grabbing her by the wrist, and pulling her off a bed.

At one point, he allegedly told her, “Do not disrespect me. You don’t get to sleep in my house tonight.”

Miniutti claims she managed to get away and was texting a friend, when Avenatti allegedly took the phone away from her, grabbed her by the arm, and dragged her into the hallway of the apartment building. She was allegedly only wearing a t-shirt and underwear at the time.

When she rang a neighbor’s doorbell, she says, he grabbed her again and made her go back inside.

Finally, she claims, Avenatti let her go and she went to building security who kept her in a private room until someone came to get her. Avenatti allegedly rode the elevator down with her as she went to security.

The court order says that Avenatti cannot come within 100 yards of Miniutti or contact her in any way. The next court date is scheduled for December.

Law&Crime reached out to Avenatti for comment on these allegations, but he did not immediately respond. He did tweet that TMZ’s initial story was false, and that they were “presented with conclusive evidence” of this. He threatened to sue if they don’t retract that story and apologize. That report said that the woman involved had a “swollen and bruised” face. The latest details only refer to scratches on her leg and side.

Michael Avenatti

.@tmz was presented with conclusive evidence yesterday that their story of last week is completely false. If they do not retract the story and issue an apology, they will be sued. Their conduct is outrageous and they need to be held accountable. Trying to help Trump is no excuse.

John Mc Gowan said...


Also of note is that Miniutti reportedly claims that Avenatti has been “verbally abusive and financially controlling” in the past. The court documents also state that this wasn’t the first physical incident between the two. In February, he allegedly pushed her out of his apartment into the hallway, resulting in Miniutti hitting her dead on a neighbor’s door. He also allegedly threw her shoes at her during that alleged incident.

John Mc Gowan said...

Avenatti Claims He Has ‘Authorized’ the Release of ‘All the Video’ that Will Exonerate Him

Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti claimed Tuesday afternoon on Twitter that he has “authorized” the release of all video he says will exonerate him of domestic violence allegations. Avenatti was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence last week in Los Angeles, and the alleged victim has been named as actress Mareli Miniutti.

Michael Avenatti

I want the truth to be known - all of it. The truth about the alleged incident on Tues night/Wed am, as well as the truth about TMZ's completely false reporting about last Wed afternoon. I want it ALL disclosed. ASAP. As a result, I just authorized the release of all the video.

“I want the truth to be known – all of it. The truth about the alleged incident on Tues night/Wed am, as well as the truth about TMZ’s completely false reporting about last Wed afternoon. I want it ALL disclosed. ASAP. As a result, I just authorized the release of all the video,” he said.

Avenatti shared a screenshot of a letter he signed, saying, “I hereby request that SM 10000, LLC, immediately release to my counsel and the Los Angeles Police Department all video footage recorded on Tuesday, November 13-Wednesday, November 14 from any and all security cameras at the building which captured footage related to the alleged incident (the ‘Footage’).”

Letter screen shot in link below.

Michael Avenatti

When the truth and the facts are fully disclosed, including the security camera footage, I will be vindicated and a lot of people and news organizations are going to owe me an apology as well as money. Completely bogus. Let’s start with TMZ’s reporting from last week.

Michael Avenatti

.@tmz was presented with conclusive evidence yesterday that their story of last week is completely false. If they do not retract the story and issue an apology, they will be sued. Their conduct is outrageous and they need to be held accountable. Trying to help Trump is no excuse.

Michael Avenatti

.@tmz cannot even reconcile their story from last week with their story from today. They can’t have it both ways. Their conduct is disgusting and they need to rectify it immediately. We demand a retraction and an apology. Now.

6:40 PM - Nov 20, 2018
Avenatti has spent much of Tuesday railing against the gossip site TMZ, which initially reported that he had battered his estranged wife, before later correcting that. TMZ reported on Tuesday that court documents showed that it was Miniutti who has been granted a restraining order she requested.

Although Avenatti has denied ever striking a woman or abusing anyone, Miniutti claimed in court documents that after she and Avenatti argued over money on Nov. 13, he called her an “ungrateful f**king bitch,” hit her in the face with pillows, grabbed her by the wrist, and pulled her off of a bed. She also alleged that this was not the first time he abused her, saying that in February he pushed her into a hallway, causing her to hit her head.

Tania Cadogan said...

The court documents also state that this wasn’t the first physical incident between the two. In February, he allegedly pushed her out of his apartment into the hallway, resulting in Miniutti hitting her dead on a neighbor’s door.

That made me snort.It's my own fault too much of gurneys nonsense has set me on humor overload.
I know i shouldn't bite, sometimes she excels herself and i giggle and then suffer a bad bout of sarchasmitis.
It does however tell me when i have hit a sensitive spot as she kicks off.

I really should apologize to her after replying to one spectacular comment and asking if she had fun in special ed. mainly because my mom said i should not mock the mentally deficient.
I am sorely tempted to reply as such, i had to ask my uncle how many levels of hell there are and he replied 7.
I figure i have 5 free shots left before i have to tell hell i am taking over :)

Anonymous said...

Off topic

On November 14, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Tania Cadogan posted information about “The Watcher”.

I have read (a.o.) the article in The Cut and tried to decipher The Watcher’s anonymous letters. I noticed several things:

1. The Watcher speaks about “the house" and “657 Boulevard” as if it is a person. I think he uses the house as a metaphor for himself. He says it in so many words:“657 Boulevard is (…) my life”. Who would identify with a big house? Because I felt Derek Broaddus might be The Watcher, I looked up the meaning of “Broaddus”. It turns out this name means “broad/extensive house”.

2. The Watcher repeatedly uses the word “greed”. This may be the direct motive for introducing a creepy stalker. The Broaddusses started a law suit against the sellers, claiming (I) a refund of the entire purchase price (1.35 million dollar) with interest AND (II) retention of free title to the house AND (III) reimbursement of all incurred costs. All this because the sellers failed to disclose the receipt of a similar anonymous letter just days prior to closing.

3. The letters contain many references to “family”, “house”, “history/past”, “father”, “watching/watched”, “secrets”, “in charge/control”, “young blood”, “children”, “anxious/afraid”, “alone”, “crying”, “punish”, “survived”, “assault”, “revenge”, etc.. I think this may allude to a deeper motive. Perhaps something about the new house (the basement and/or attic?) made Derek Broaddus regress to a childhood trauma caused by his father. Unaware of this trauma, he directs his feelings of revenge (“vile and spiteful Derek”) towards the object that caused his regression: the house. Not only does he make up a creepy stalker so he doesn’t have to live in the house. He also ultimately wants to completely demolish it just like he feels totally destroyed by his childhood trauma (re-enactment). The expression “young blood” seems deeply personal. Is this how his father called him? Are the letters, in a way, also addressed to his father?

4. The letters seem to be a cry for help and they sound increasingly unhinged. I think The Watcher doesn’t feel heard. Could this be why the Broaddusses have recently sought national publicity even though – from what I understand – they haven’t received any anonymous letters in a while? Also, Derek Broaddus seems to be preoccupied with mental suffering. His own tweets (and several retweets) are often about mental illness (“mental illness is real”, “mental illness is real”, etc.). He has also admitted to writing anonymous letters to neighbors who speculated that he had invented The Watcher. These letters had the same simmering resentment as the letters sent by The Watcher and included several stories about recent acts of domestic terrorism in which signs of brewing mental illness had gone unnoticed.



Anonymous said...

Off topic (cont.)

With the above in mind, perhaps The Watcher’s first letter should be interpreted as follows:

THE WATCHER’S FIRST LETTER (incomplete / source: The Cut)

”Dearest new neighbor at 657 Boulevard,
Allow me to welcome you to the neighborhood.
How did you end up here? Did 657 Boulevard call to you with its force within?”

Interpretation: “I am Broaddus, your new neighbor. Allow me to introduce myself. How did I end up writing this letter? It’s a force deep within me that is calling for attention.”

”657 Boulevard has been the subject of my family for decades now and as it approaches its 110th birthday, I have been put in charge of watching and waiting for its second coming. My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time. Do you know the history of the house? Do you know what lies within the walls of 657 Boulevard? Why are you here? I will find out.
Interpretation: “Broaddus (“big house”) is my family name and I’ve had family-related issues for decades now. My birthday approaches and I am the second-in-charge [note: Derek had his birthday right before closing and is vice president of an insurance company]. I am the coming man, watching and waiting for payback. My father watched me, my father watched me. It is now my time to retaliate. Do you have any idea what happened in my past? These lies are coming from within the house/myself (this is an “inside job”). I don’t want to be here. I need to find a way out.”

I see already that you have flooded 657 Boulevard with contractors so that you can destroy the house as it was supposed to be. Tsk, tsk, tsk … bad move. You don’t want to make 657 Boulevard unhappy.”
Interpretation: “I already made the house less attractive [by inventing a stalker] so that I can destroy (annul) the (purchase) contract, as I planned all along. Buying the house was a bad move. I don’t want to live in this house. I’m unhappy in it. Memories of my destroyed home life came flooding back to me. So now, in return, I want to destroy the house.”

”You have children. I have seen them. So far I think there are three that I have counted.”
Note: The deeper meaning of this paragraph (if any) is not entirely clear to me. The Watcher also asked (referring to children) if there were “more on the way”. Maybe he is leaking that so far he has composed three letters and, thus, that more are on the way? The Watcher initially sent three letters.

”Do you need to fill the house with the young blood I requested? Better for me. Was your old house too small for the growing family? Or was it greed to bring me your children? Once I know their names I will call to them and draw them too [sic] me.”
Possible interpretation: ???
Note: Could the first three sentences refer to a childhood trauma (fill the house, house too small for growing family)?

Who am I? There are hundreds and hundreds of cars that drive by 657 Boulevard each day. Maybe I am in one. Look at all the windows you can see from 657 Boulevard. Maybe I am in one. Look out any of the many windows in 657 Boulevard at all the people who stroll by each day. Maybe I am one.
Possible interpretation: “My car is on the driveway of 657 Boulevard every day. I look out the windows of 657 Boulevard and see myself (reflection in the windows). Look, I am giving you a window into my soul. I am one person, I am “in one” (inane, insane?).”
Note: I feel “hundreds and hundreds of cars” and “stroll” (troll?) also have a deeper meaning. One thing I noticed is that the abbreviation CAR has many different meanings in the insurance and financial world.

“Welcome my friends, welcome. Let the party begin.

The Watcher.”



Anonymous said...

Off topic (cont.)

THE WATCHER’S SECOND LETTER (incomplete / source: The Cut)

“Welcome again to your new home at 657 Boulevard.

The workers have been busy and I have been watching you unload carfuls of your personal belongings. The dumpster is a nice touch. Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will.

I am pleased to know your names now and the name of the young blood you have brought to me. You certainly say their names often.

657 Boulevard is anxious for you to move in. It has been years and years since the young blood ruled the hallways of the house. Have you found all of the secrets it holds yet? Will the young blood play in the basement? Or are they too afraid to go down there alone. I would [be] very afraid if I were them. It is far away from the rest of the house. If you were upstairs you would never hear them scream.

Will they sleep in the attic? Or will you all sleep on the second floor? Who has the bedrooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom. Then I can plan better.

All of the windows and doors in 657 Boulevard allow me to watch you and track you as you move through the house. Who am I? I am the Watcher and have been in control of 657 Boulevard for the better part of two decades now. The Woods family turned it over to you. It was their time to move on and kindly sold it when I asked them to.

I pass by many times a day. 657 Boulevard is my job, my life, my obsession. And now you are too Braddus family. Welcome to the product of your greed! Greed is what brought the past three families to 657 Boulevard and now it has brought you to me.

Have a happy moving in day. You know I will be watching.”

Note: This second letter was addressed to the Broaddusses directly, misspelling their names as “Mr. and Mrs. Braddus.” The Watcher boasted of having learned a lot about the family in the preceding weeks, especially about their children. The letter identified the Broadduses’ three kids by birth order and by their nicknames. The letter asked about one child in particular, whom the writer had seen using an easel inside an enclosed porch: “Is she the artist in the family?”

Note: I googled “Broaddus artist” and saw that there was a prominent artist named John Eric Broaddus (perhaps he was related of Derek Broaddus?).



Anonymous said...

Off topic (cont.)


“Where have you gone to? 657 Boulevard is missing you.”

“Are you one of those Hoboken transplants who are ruining Westfield?”

“The house is crying from all of the pain it is going through. You have changed it and made it so fancy. You are stealing it’s [sic] history. It cries for the past and what used to be in the time when I roamed it’s [sic] halls. The 1960s were a good time for 657 Boulevard when I ran from room to room imagining the life with the rich occupants there. The house was full of life and young blood. Then it got old and so did my father. But he kept watching until the day he died. And now I watch and wait for the day when the young blood will be mine again.”

“657 Boulevard is turning on me. It is coming after me. I don’t understand why. What spell did you cast on it? It used to be my friend and now it is my enemy. I am in charge of 657 Boulevard. It is not in charge of me. I will fend off its bad things and wait for it to become good again. It will not punish me. I will rise again. I will be patient and wait for this to pass and for you to bring the young blood back to me. 657 Boulevard needs young blood. It needs you. Come back. Let the young blood play again like I once did. Let the young blood sleep in 657 Boulevard. Stop changing it and let it alone.”

THE WATCHER’S FINAL (?) LETTER (incomplete / source: The Cut)

Violent winds and bitter cold
To the vile and spiteful Derek and his wench of a wife Maria,

You wonder who The Watcher is? Turn around idiot s. Maybe you even spoke to me, one of the so called neighbors who has no idea who The Watcher could be. Or maybe you do know and are too scared to tell anyone. Good move.”

“I walked by the news trucks when they took over my neighborhood and mocked me

“I watched as you watched from the dark house in an attempt to find me … Telescopes and binoculars are wonderful inventions.”

“657 Boulevard survived your attempted assault and stood strong with its army of supporters barricading its gates. My soldiers of the Boulevard followed my orders to a T. They carried out their mission and saved the soul of 657 Boulevard with my orders. All hail The Watcher!!!

NOTE: this final letter also mentioned that revenge could come in many forms:

"Maybe a car accident . Maybe a fire. Maybe something as simple as a mild illness that never seems to go away but makes you fell [sic] sick day after day after day after day after day . Maybe the mysterious death of a pet. Loved ones suddenly die. Planes and cars and bicycles crash. Bones break".

I think this snippet is especially troubling. Is this how The Watcher wants to take revenge? In one of his letters, The Watcher says his father has already died. Does this (also?) refer to his own state of mind ("mild illness that never seems to go away", etc.)?


Tania Cadogan said...

Michael Avenatti won't face felony charges following claims that he physically abused his girlfriend, Los Angeles prosecutors announced Wednesday afternoon.

“A case presented today by #LosAngeles police involving attorney Michael Avenatti has been referred to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office for misdemeanor filing consideration,” the Los Angeles district attorney tweeted.

Avenatti is best known as the attorney for adult film star Stormy Daniels, who says she was paid to keep quiet about an affair with Donald Trump years before he became president. The lawyer was arrested on a felony domestic violence charge last week. Actress Mareli Miniutti says in court papers that Avenatti dragged her by the arm across the floor of his Los Angeles apartment after an argument.

Miniutti, 24, said she and Avenatti, 47, dated from October 2017 to Nov. 13 of this year, the night Avenatti allegedly hit her in the face with pillows and followed her into a guest bedroom where she went to sleep alone, The New York Times reported.

Miniutti said they had an argument about money in his Los Angeles apartment.

“He dragged me on the floor of the apartment towards and out of the door into the public hallway,” she wrote in the declaration. “I was wearing only my underwear and a T-shirt at the time, and suffered scratches to the bare skin on my side and leg.”

Avenatti, who had called the allegations "completely false" and a fabrication, said in a statement he was thankful the district attorney had not taken up the charges.

"This Thanksgiving," he said, "I am especially grateful for justice."

His client Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has said she had an affair with Trump in 2006, and with Avenatti representing her, she has sued to invalidate the confidentiality agreement she signed days before the 2016 presidential election. She also sued Trump and his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, alleging defamation.

Avenatti has become a very public figure in his defense of Daniels and has floated the idea of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Fox News' Elizabeth Zwirz, Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Anonymous said...

Avenatti is "especially grateful for justice" now that the district attorney has not taken up the charges. Why is he so grateful if he did nothing wrong?

By saying “I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters”, he was leaking something about the accuser (i.m.o.). She is beautiful and young enough to be his daughter. By including "smart” he is unwittingly telling us: you should believe what she is saying. Deep down he feels he disrespected his daughters by intimidating, inappropriately touching and striking someone who was more like a daughter to him than a woman. “The LAPD had no option given the allegations” means: the allegations are true (or else they would have had an option).

I also find it baffling how Avenatti tries to squeeze president Trump into this story by saying “Trying to help Trump is no excuse” (in a tweet to TMZ on November 20, 2018). A severe case of TDS, I guess, but maybe he is also leaking: “the fact that I was taking care of the accuser is not an excuse for my behavior”.


Habundia said...

I am reading through all of the older blogs when I came across this:

"Question: "Did you have anything to do with her disappearance?"

Answer: "I have nothing to do with it. I picked her up and took her home that night. That's it. "

Here he gives what appears to be a good denial, but, only if you interpret his words. If you listen carefully and allow his own words to guide you, it is not a good denial as it violates principle #2:

"I have nothing" is in the present tense. He does not say "I had nothing to do with it."

If at the time of the question asked the missing person is still missing wouldn't it be inappropriate to say "I had nothing to do with it"? Or wouldn't it?
I was thinking if I was asked that question I would have said "I have nothing to do with her disappearance"
That is if the person that is missing still is missing. If the person was found death I would have said "I had nothing to do with her disappearance (and her death)"
So my question is: if a person is still missing could present tense be considered reliable? If not? What would be the reasoning for it?
To me it seems odd to talk in past tense if the missing person is still missing.
I believe it would indicate 'knowledge of what has happened' to the person they are talking about in past tense? (Like the parent of a missing child talking in past tense when talking about the missing child)

M said...

Blogger Unknown said...
Blogger Bobcat said...
Off Topic:

This story reminds me of the McCann's continued profitable hoax.

Bobcat there are many horror stories out about Gardasil. Japan tells its citizens not to have it after serious complications were experienced in Japan.

Right you are, Unknown, there are many cases of sickness and death caused by Gardasil, its ill effects are undeniable.
In Colombia as well, many are sick and some have died from this vaccine.

Bobcat said...

OT: Chaplain Jim Bontrager of Elkhart PD statement regarding alleged police brutality.

The Nov. 18 Tribune article “Punished yet promoted” implied the majority of Elkhart Police Department’s leadership is disqualified because of numerous disciplinary actions levied against them in the past. It painted a dark narrative of a department whose past filled with brutality and racism was somehow transferred to the present. It further implied that EPD’s current chief, Ed Windbigler, brought that mindset with him to EPD and therein lies a clue as to why discipline rates have plummeted and officers have become emboldened to become heavy-handed. The problem is that it’s not true.

To begin, Windbigler honorably served his country as a U.S. Marine whose duties included guarding former President Ronald Reagan on Marine 1. In addition to 24 years of prior service with EPD, he also served honorably as the chief investigator for the Elkhart County Prosecutor’s Office. Ed is one of the most respected law enforcement leaders in Elkhart County. Perfect, no … sincere with a desire to learn and grow from mistakes, yes … working to provide the tools, training, equipment and environment to make his officers fulfilled and successful? Absolutely!

I have the opportunity to train law enforcement officers and chaplains around the country in implementing many of the programs we’ve pioneered at EPD. I’ve personally asked them to share their greatest frustration with the profession. Survey says the number one answer: bad leadership. Officers fully expect the public to be negative. What eats their lives is that their greatest detractors often lie as leaders internally, using heavy-handed disciplinary measures to maintain control. That often takes place with the changing of the guard each election cycle in city police work. Political grudges, ill feelings and payback can be the norm in party changes. Windbigler faced that challenge as he took the helm of EPD in 2016.

One of the first things Ed did was to clear the playing field. He told officers that his administration would not be involved in tit-for-tat politics. He told them that each member of his department would begin on an equal playing field ... their past was just that, their past … that from that minute forward they could put their best foot forward and shine. He worked to build an organizational structure that afforded the same opportunity to all his administrative leaders. He placed each where he thought their capabilities would best serve the needs of the organization and the community it serves. The department flourished and officers from other agencies, some with up to 17 years’ experience, joined our ranks.

Second chances and learning from failure are at the heart of the American experience. Our history is replete with examples of great leaders who made extremely bad decisions in the earlier stages of life only to rise to greatness afterwards. Police work is an extremely challenging profession that provides ample opportunity to make mistakes. All of us, including me as their senior chaplain have made them. All of us have grown and as a result I’m surrounded by many exceptional leaders because of it. I categorically reject the notion that those who make numerous mistakes are unqualified to lead.

lynda said...

Being reported that Avenatti's accuser called 911 @ 12:28 am, did not report any injuries, did not identify herself or say her name, only that she was "assaulted by Michael AVenatti".

Hmmm...didn't leave her name, just dropped his, and reported no injuries.

Hey Jude said...


Kiara Moore inquest:

Habundia said...

My guts tell me this case is not what it is ruled at.
The death of the 6 year old isn't either.

Some of the statements in this article are strange.
Anyone familiar with this case?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

After fearing their car had been stolen with their two-year-old daughter inside, a couple then found it had rolled into a river, an inquest heard.

Kiara Moore was found inside the vehicle in the River Teifi, Cardigan, in March and later pronounced dead.

In recording a conclusion of misadventure, coroner Peter Brunton called it "a catastrophic event" to happen to any parents.

Kiara had been left alone for two minutes as her mother went to get cash.

In a statement issued after the inquest, Kiara's family said she was "an amazing little girl who lived a life full of love and adventure".

The hearing at Aberystwyth Justice Centre was told the silver Mini was parked on a slipway outside the family business, Adventure Beyond, on 21 March.

Kiara's mother Kim Rowlands put her daughter in the vehicle at about 15:30 GMT and went to get cash from inside the business.

When she returned the car had "vanished" and police were called.

But CCTV footage showed in the two minutes Ms Rowlands had left Kiara, the car had rolled into the river.

PCSO Caryl Griffiths, who dived into the water when the car was located in the river, broke down as she described to the inquest her efforts to get to Kiara.

"I dived head first into the river, the water was freezing cold and I could tell the current was really strong, pulling my head under the water.

"It was dirty and I could not see anything underwater."

Another police officer joined and helped Ms Griffiths smash a window.

"I immediately felt Kiara's body float out of the car into my arms," she said, adding she knew it was the toddler as she was wearing a pink jacket described by her parents.

Ms Griffiths said after she got Kiara's body to shore, another officer began performing CPR.

The girl was flown to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, where she was pronounced dead.

But the inquest was told Kiara would have drowned within 30 seconds of the car entering the water.

In a statement Ms Rowlands described her daughter "singing, shouting and laughing" when she left her, but not strapped in and in a "mischievous mood".

She said her only guess was she had "a funny five minutes".

Her father, Jet Moore, said there had not been any issues with the Mini apart from "normal wear and tear" and Kiara knew not to play with the controls and "had no interest".

The inquest was told the vehicle was found in third gear without the handbrake applied.

Forensic vehicle examiner Aled Thomas said the handbrake was efficient and it would have taken "some effort" to release it.

The cause of Kiara's death was given as immersion, with the coroner saying on the balance of probabilities, the handbrake had not been set when Kiara was left in the car.

No charges were brought by Dyfed-Powys Police.

The family's statement said: "She left us all with a huge gap in our lives this year.

"Since she has been gone, not a day has passed where we have not spoken about her life with us, her brother, sisters and wider family.

"We had so many adventures with her in her short life."

PJ said...

Agreed. There are lots of red flags for me. Many things do not add up to the conclusions reached. Especially that she committed suicide in such a bizarre manner.

LuciaD said...

With the handbrake not set, it is shocking the mother wasn’t charged with some negligence. In the US she would have been.

Bobcat said...

There's the out of place "funny". It brings to mind Nathan Carman describing a "funny noise" as his mother drowned at sea.

I'll bet those five minutes while the parents forced themselves to sit at the grey desk pretending to look for cash after they hopped out of the car (on a ramp, in gear, with no brakes) - are seared in their memory.

I wonder what the statistics are on statements that include game playing.

Anonymous said...

Re. Kiara Moore: I find it so strange that the car did not start rolling when the mother - who was much heavier than the little girl - was still in the car (other people have pointed this out as well). Maybe the child moved to the back seat which set the car in motion?

Did they not hear the car splashing into the water?

The facebook post by the father never sounded right to me. A mix of relief, acceptance, ingratiation, etc. (maybe he hadn't fully realized what had happened yet?).
And: "It was the lemons stacked up too far". What does that mean? A "stack up" is (i.a.) a mistake, accident, calamity, etc. A "lemon" is (i.a.) a failure. Does he refer to the car rolling into the water? Or did some accident/calamity happen before that and was this a cover up?
Also: the focus on "go home"/"get home" and "needed money"/"get money" at the beginning of the post. Did something happen at home? Is "snapped" a subconscious indication that someone snapped at home?
And: "They tried to revive her for hours, but unfortunately could not. Everyone done their best." Everyone? Did the parents also try to revive her for hours (at home)?
I have more questions. Also: the most negative word the father uses is: "unfortunately". No sign of grief. Instead he uses words like "incredible happy", "great adventurous fun", "made us all happy".

As to Rebecca Zahau: she was definitely murdered (i.m.o). There are several podcasts on this case, e.g. by Nancy Grace (June 6, 2018).


John Mc Gowan said...

The inquest was told the vehicle was found in third gear without the handbrake applied.

If it was a manual car in gear and the handbreak is not engaged if memory serves it should not roll. That is unless there was a fault with the gears

Anonymous said...

How strange. Maybe there was something wrong with the gears then.

I've read on that "CCTV showed the car began to roll down the slipway it was parked on, and ended up in the freezing river 10 seconds later. Miss Rowlands appeared outside around a minute later and called the police after initially fearing the car had been stolen with her toddler inside."

Maybe the parents tell the truth. If it was a cover up they sure chose a risky and burdensome way to do it. Poor little girl.


General P. Malaise said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...
The inquest was told the vehicle was found in third gear without the handbrake applied.

no it would not roll if in gear unless on a moderate slope in third gear it would roll slowly.

I would be interested to know if the ignition was on. I would consider the person let it idle in third gear into the water. of course it would be difficult to know if the ignition is a push button type.

Shelley said...


Has anyone seen the story by People on Nanette Krentel. It was on the discovery channel I think.

I am dying to see what others think.

Anyways, I am trying to find more statements by the husband. Here are the few I have found. I have no clue what may have been asked. Really just limited with statements.

Anyone see anything that stands out. I wish I had more. I really think he is responsible.

STEVE “I have suspected every single person in my life or people we knew on a peripheral of our life, and I have to trust that the police by investigating them and eliminating them, that they know their job, So it’s down to the individual that did it is probably going to be somebody that I am not thinking of.”
STEVE “I have a feeling it’s got to be somebody that we know either directly or indirectly”
Some allegations he is aware of made him state below. It is a coworker. Again, not sure if a specific question was asked, he is just quoted about the allegations.
STEVE “clouding again the efforts to find out what happened” “the tragedy I’ve lived through is going to impact the organization." “The only impact to the organization is the BS that they’re starting,”
If you look at videos when he pulled up to the fire (he was also a fireman) at their home with his dash cam on, he looks completely calm. Only seconds but it stood out to me. Like there was not this panic in him.
She was shot and then the house burned.
Husband was having an affair. And since then, has been in trouble at work for having affairs on the job.
They have said Nanette knew about the affair at the time and was planning to divorce him. She would have gotten half of his pay and retirement. Motive.

He had a solid alibi (was at work) and passed a poly. But could have had someone else do it.

Anonymous said...

OT (Nanette Krentel)

Shelley, I watched the documentary on you tube just now.

My thoughts (I’m not an expert though):
- Steve was having a “straight face” throughout almost the entire documentary. I felt he tried to look innocent (which he may be, I don’t know).
- Steve says his cousin called him at close to 2 o’clock to tell him about the fire. However, based on the 911 call, the fire started at around 2.30 PM
- I agree that Steve shows no emotion when he comes driving up to his house on fire. But he may have been focused on saving his house and his wife and animals.
- According to Steve, July 14th 2017 was no different than any other day. This is usually a sign that that day was very different from any other day.
- Steve says: “I, I can definitely see why statistically I’m the individual that is most likely to do something (…),” etc. (see below). Is this an embedded confession?
- Steve says his affair was “not something that would have been an issue to do with this, at all”. How does he know that? Why does he say “would have been” instead of “was”? Why does he say to do with “this”? Does “this” not indicate a closeness to himself? Why does he not simply say: I did not do it/had nothing to do with it at all? Or maybe he did say that but the documentary simply doesn’t show it (that seems unlikely, though)?
- We don’t know when Nanette was murdered, so we don’t know if Steve has an alibi for the murder.
- As to the fire, both Steve and his brother had an alibi. Are there mechanisms with which one can start a fire from a distance (at a certain time)? Could either Steve or his brother have had an accomplice?
- The fact that Steve volunteered for a polygraph speaks to his innocence.



Anonymous said...

OT cont. (Nanette Krentel)

Some statements from the People documentary on Nanette Krentel:

4:18 Narrator: ”According to Steve, on July 14th 2017, the couple’s routine was like every other day.”

4:26 Steve: “I got up in the morning, took my shower, got out, my clothes were out for me, she had packed my lunch and everything for me to take to work.”

4:36 Narrator: “Nanette walks Steve out to his work truck and watches him drive away.”

4:54 Narrator: “Then around 2.30 PM his cousin, who lives on the property adjacent to his, calls Steve to say his house is on fire.”

5:05 Steve: “I accused him of “quit messing with me”. I really thought he was joking [Steve is shaking his head “no”].”

20:14 Steve: “I, I can definitely see why statistically I’m the individual that is most likely to do something. I can see how me working at a fire department, people jump to the conclusions that I had something to do with it because it was a fire.”

21.31 Steve: “I did have an affair, but she was aware of it and it was a possibility that Nanette and I may not remain together. It was difficult, but, we worked through it, and, I mean, it, it was not something that would have been an issue to do with this, at all.”

22.39 Steve: “But July 14th it was no different than any other day. Nanette walked me out. I left to go to work. I got there by 8 o’clock, 8.10 in the morning, somewhere around there. And probably close to 2 o ‘clock I received the phone call from my cousin. And that’s all I know about that.”

23.16 Narrator: “Based on the 911 call, the fire started around 2.30 PM.”

23.21 Nanette’s father: “The police knew that Nanette was dead prior to the starting of the fire. So the question was: when did she die.”

41.30 Steve: “So this is right where she was found, right here in this area. Being out here, it’s a place that I prefer to come by myself and not with other people. When I do come out here by myself now, I do have some peace and I can think about the good times and the plans that we had for the future. There was no doubt that I loved her, there was no doubt that she loved me and that we belonged together. I firmly believe that the only thing that is going to solve this case is going to be somebody talking. Somebody knows something.”


Barbara said...

Duchess Kate speaking about Duchess Meghan’s pregnancy:

Asked if she were excited for ‘Meghan and her new baby’, Kate said: ‘Yes absolutely, no it’s such a special time to have all kiddies.

She added: 'And a cousin for George and Charlotte as well, and Louis. So it will be really special.'

Habundia said...

PJ said...
Agreed. There are lots of red flags for me. Many things do not add up to the conclusions reached. Especially that she committed suicide in such a bizarre manner.

I saw a docu about the case on ID (two man going into the case and try to 'solve the case')
They came to the conclusion because of her unhappy marriage, the 'accident of the 6 year old falling over the railing from the first floor, with his step', which she, they say, felt responsible for, that she then undressed herself, bound a part of the robe to the bed, bound herself by her feet and hands on her back, put the robe over her head and then walked to the balcony and let herself fall down.
I have a hard time to believe it!
Especially when reading the statements of her boyfriend's ex-wife, she makes me go......hmmm

Mizzmarple said...

Hi Shelley,

Yes, I watched the People episode on Nanette Krentel.

I have followed this case since day 1 as I found it extremely odd that the fire chief's wife died in a fire in their home in the middle of the day while he was at work. Then a week later, it was released that she died from a gunshot wound.

Mmmm ...

I have family and friends in that area of Louisiana that knew of Nanette because she was a very popular school teacher in that Parish. I live in New Orleans, which is a 35 minute drive.

I am typing from phone but will comment more when i get to laptop.

It is a very interesting case and i hope there will be justice soon for Nanette and her family.

M said...

Adam Shaknai, Jonah Shaknai's brother, was found responsible for Rebecca Zahua's death in April 2018 by a civil jury.
Police continue to say there is no physical evidence to support charges.
This is one of the most bizarre cases imaginable, both deaths are extremely suspicious.

John Mc Gowan said...


The interrogation tapes: How police got Chris Watts to change his story

DENVER, Colorado -- Perhaps the most revealing thing about the hours of interrogation tapes from the questioning of Chris Watts is the sense that Colorado detectives never really believed his story about what really happened to his missing wife and daughters.

In the videos recorded during two days in August inside the Frederick Police Department in Colorado, Chris Watts admits to detectives that his marriage was in trouble, he was having an affair and says he told his wife the morning she disappeared that he was leaving her.

Watts' wife, Shannan, was raised in Aberdeen. The couple met in North Carolina before moving to Colorado to raise their daughters, 4-year old Bella and 3-year old Celeste.

"Obviously it's getting pretty emotional," Watts tells detectives, describing the early morning conversation with his wife. "We're talking about we felt the disconnection was there. We're falling out of love."

The lead detective expresses skepticism about the story, "The day (Shannan) goes missing is the day you guys have marital discord," he said. "You can understand what I'm thinking about you."

At this point in the interview, Watts maintains his innocence, "It honestly just makes me sick to my stomach because this is something that I would never do," Watts claims. "There's no way I would harm anybody in my family at all. I am telling you the absolute truth."

But one day later, Watts' story changed after detectives tell him that he failed a lie detector test.

It is completely clear that you were not honest during the testing," a detective tells Watts. "And I think you already know that. You did not pass the polygraph test."

John Mc Gowan said...


Police bring in Watts' father to the interrogation room where the son tells his dad that Shannan strangled the girls.

"They were, they were blue," Watts tells his father.

When detectives returned, Chris Watts version of the truth was that Shannan killed their daughters and when he discovered what she did, he killed Shannan in a rage.

"The evil that I saw when I walked behind Shannan when she was behind (Celeste)," he said. "I didn't know what to do. I didn't know what to (expletive) do. None of this made sense!"

That turned out to be a lie as well.

Watts ultimately admitted in court that he killed Shannan and his daughters then dumped their bodies in a Colorado oil field.

He'll spend the rest of his life in prison -- after he pleaded guilty earlier this month.

Includes Vt clip

Anonymous said...

Off topic:

Peter, it might be interesting for you to analyze one or two of Wayne Williams' responses to questions in a recent podcast about the Atlanta child murders. Specifically, the host confronts him with a claim by someone who now says Williams had attempted to abduct him and another boy but failed. This wasn't part of the trial and not something Williams would have been expecting to hear, so his response might be less prepared than when he talks about other parts of the case. The podcast is long but the part I'm referring to is in Episode 10 – the story of the attempted abduction (perhaps also worth analyzing) starts at around 43 minutes, and Williams' denial starts at around 50 minutes.

Anonymous said...

OT: Random celebrity interview excerpts:

Paste: I watch the show on the TNT app on Roku, and you’re the image that shows up. It’s you in your purple bathrobe lying by the pool.

Norris: My favorite part is that, when you watch the show on TV, over the mature content warning is that image.

Paste: That’s a little weird, actually. Because it’s a show about women.

Norris: ... Women are the core part of the show. But certainly the plot goes through this Dixie Mafia and that moves the story.

Paste: He’s bisexual, but you haven’t seen that played up that much so far.

Norris: I like the fact that we have that in there, but we don’t focus on it or make a big deal about it. I like that that’s one of the ways they write the show. It’s there, but they’re not going “Hey!” It’s just part of who he is. And I think that’s an interesting part of who he is because [of the] world that he grew up in. Can you imagine coming out in that tough—can I say white trash? Is that a pejorative?—bad kind of place? And he starts realizing that he has a different kind of sexuality? Imagine having to try to come out in that. I think that’s part of his drive. I love that about him. He accepts himself. His wife accepts him. He’s this crazy tough guy, but he doesn’t apologize for who he is.

Anonymous said...

OT (Nanette Krentel)

On the night before the fire, Nanette was on facebook having a real-time conversation with her best friend Lori. After a few hours, at about 10.30 PM, Nanette abruptly stopped responding and didn’t say goodbye which was very unusual for her. Nanette’s friends and family feel she may have been killed that night. The sheriff, however, says he has proof Nanette was alive the next day just hours before the fire broke out. He says there is a video of her at a MacDonald’s at around 10 AM on the day of the fire. However, close family members of Nanette who have seen the video say it merely shows there is a person in the car with long dark hair and something moving (seemingly a pet, but could also be the arm of someone else) but there is no way of telling whether that person is a man or a woman (let alone Nanette). The sheriff is nevertheless sure that it was Nanette in the video because her phone pinged in the MacDonald location at the given time. Steve is also sure it’s Nanette because of her “mannerisms”.

If Nanette was still alive at 10 PM the day of the fire, her husband Steve couldn’t have killed her because he was at the office from around 8 AM until 2 PM that day. However, if Nanette was murdered the night before, Steve could have been the killer. In that case someone else must have gone to the MacDonald’s in Nanette’s car with her cellphone the next morning. Nanette’s friends and family deem this a likely scenario. They clearly felt Steve was building an alibi when he called them the day after the fire to inform them about Nanette’s (supposed) visit to MacDonald’s. Interestingly, no food was found in Nanette’s stomach although she supposedly made a purchase of around 7 dollar.

If Steve killed Nanette (or had her killed), he would probably leak details of the murder while talking about the case. I have listened to several documentaries to see if Steve gives some clues. One statement that I found interesting is the following (from the People documentary). In it, I feel Steve may leak details about the above scenario:

29.17 STEVE: “I do not believe that there was anything that she had a problem with when it came to Justin that was any different than any normal kid going through growing pains. Justin had gotten married a year and a half or so before Nanette’s death and we were very happy for Justin. During the wedding, about halfway through the mother-son dance, my ex-wife and Justin came up to Nanette who was filming it with her telephone recording the dance and he swapped and let my ex-wife use Nanette’s phone to video the rest of the dance and Nanette and Justin shared the rest of the dance. It was one of the most touching things that you can imagine.”

It may seem far-fetched to assume leakage here. On the surface it seems an innocent story about Nanette’s relationship with Steve’s son Justin. However, what are the odds that Steve (in the few statements/platitudes that he makes) brings up a story with details that exactly match the scenario assumed by Nanette’s friends and family, i.e.: (1) Nanette being swapped with someone else about halfway through, (2) that someone else taking Nanette’s phone and (3) a video being taken of the swap? Also, the fact that Steve says “I do not believe (...) any different than any normal kid” while talking about Justin makes me feel he thinks his son was anything but normal. At least Nanette didn’t think he was normal. She was very afraid of Justin because he was carrying around several guns and threatening Nanette and she did not want him around the house unless Steve was home.


John Mc Gowan said...

Interesting, Autumn

"Words don't come from a vacuum"

Anonymous said...

OT (Nanette Krentel)

Some additional thoughts/comments based on Steve’s statements as laid down in my comment of November 28, 2018 at 4:19 PM (see above):
- According to Steve “July 14th it was no different than any other day”. However, according to Steve’s colleagues, it was very unusual that Steve was at the office the day of the fire because he normally never worked on Fridays.
- Steve says: ”There was no doubt that I loved her, there was no doubt that she loved me and that we belonged together.” Why does he introduce “doubt” here, not only once but twice? Why the introduction of the negative (“no”)? It’s as if Steve is subconsciously hammering home: doubt my words. Also, why does he say there “was” no doubt (instead of “is”)? Was there doubt at a later stage? At the time of Nanette's death?
- Steve states: ”I firmly believe that the only thing that is going to solve this case is going to be somebody talking.” Why? Maybe an additional review of all evidence could shed new light on this case? Or does Steve somehow know that the perpetrator covered all their tracks? Also this statement seems contradictory to Steve’s first statement below (42.22) where he says “I have to believe” that the investigation (as opposed to somebody talking) will reveal “what truly transpired”. Why does he say “I have to believe”? Does he not want to believe that the truth will be revealed?

Below, please find a transcript of some additional statements by Steve Krentel (the first one from the People documentary, the others from a Crime Watch Daily documentary, see you tube). Again, I noticed that Steve never says: “I didn’t kill Nanette and I didn’t set the fire”. Instead, he says (among other things) it’s an “option” that he “did it”.

42.22 STEVE: “I have to believe that one day the investigation will reveal what truly transpired. I don’t believe that there, there is any secret that can’t come out.

4.37 STEVE: “I was never offended or upset when the police were investigating me and looking at everything. That to me made perfect sense. Statistically, I would be the individual that needed to be the primary focus. And I cooperated with everything.”

4.57: INTERVIEWER: “They didn’t ask you for a polygraph. But you just volunteered to take one?”

5.00 STEVE: “I offered to do it immediately. We didn’t hesitate. I went straight in. They gave it to me that day and came back an hour or so later and gave me the results. There were only three options: either I did it, somebody else did it or she had done it to herself. And I can go to sleep every night knowing I had nothing to do with this.”


Anonymous said...

'I Want To Clarify I Did Not Propose Over A Grate': British Couple Relive Engagement Ring Ordeal

Reliable denial

John Mc Gowan said...

Avenatti says he won’t run for president in 2020

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti, who had been toying with a White House bid, said on Tuesday that he will not run for president in 2020.

“After consultation with my family and at their request, I have decided not to seek the Presidency of the United States in 2020,” Avenatti said in a statement posted to Twitter. “I do not make this decision lightly — I make it out of respect for my family.”

Avenatti said he will continue to represent Daniels in her legal battle against President Trump and “will not rest until Trump is removed from office, and our republic and our values are restored.”
The lawyer, who has never held public office, was one of more than two dozen names being floated as potential candidates for the Democratic nomination.

“I remain concerned that the Democratic Party will move toward nominating an individual who might make an exceptional President but has no chance of actually beating Donald Trump,” Avenatti continued. “The party must immediately recognize that many of the likely candidates are not battletested and have no real chance of winning. We will not prevail in 2020 without a fighter. I remain hopeful the party finds one.”

Avenatti, 47, was recently accused of domestic violence by a Los Angeles actress.

Avenatti, who was arrested on Nov. 14, denied the woman’s claims, suggesting they were part of right-wing smear campaign. Los Angeles County prosecutors investigated the allegations and declined to bring felony charges against him.

View image on Twitter

Full statement:

Please see my statement below regarding 2020.

Habundia said...

it would roll when it is on a hill. When looking at Google maps at the specific place the car was set and rolled into the water the road was not was we're boats are put unto the water. Some people do put their cars into first gear......I have never seen a person set their car into 3rd gear when parking......3 a special number in SA.

Habundia said...

"The fact that Steve volunteered for a polygraph speaks to his innocence."

or it speaks to his arrogance thinking he can beat the polygraph. it doesn't make him less guilty or innocent he volunteered smart people know refusing a polygraph or not taking one looks suspicious.

Anonymous said...

To Habundia Awareness re. Nanette Krentel:

After watching the People documentary and looking at/listening to Steve for about half a minute, my "gut feeling" said: you know exactly what happened. But I tried to keep an open mind. He was not asked but volunteered to take a polygraph. Not many perpetrators of heinous crimes do that. That's why I noted it as something that points to innocence rather than guilt. I didn't mean I think he is actually innocent. Steve was a fire chief and as such was probably often in close contact with law enforcement. He would have known that volunteering a polygraph would make the police less suspicious of him (even if he would fail) BECAUSE it's uncommon for the guilty to do that (and you don't even have to be in close contact with the police to know that). I think that is exactly why he did it. Not, as he states, so that the police could start looking at other suspects. A very cold and brazen person it seems.


Anonymous said...

Come to think of it, immediately offering to do a polygraph actually has something calculating. Would that be a priority if you had just lost your wife, pets and house?

Steve says about this: "I offered to do it immediately. We didn’t hesitate. I went straight in. They gave it to me that day and came back an hour or so later and gave me the results."

He sure seems to want to emphasize his eagerness to do the polygraph. He offered it "immediately", "didn't hesitate", "went straight in" and it took only "an hour or so". No big deal, right? Also: who is "we"?


Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

I would love if you could do an analysis of Joseph Evans letter (Steven Avery’s former inmate) who claims Steven confessed what really happened to Teresa Halbach. Or any budding statement analysts that may care to chip in. Is there any truth to what he has to say? I will add the link to the “confession” below. Just a warning it makes for some unpleasant reading for anyone who hasn’t already read it.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I'd like to see the statement. "Page Not Found"

Peter Hyatt

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

Sorry it seems there was a problem with the link. I will include another link below. The link is from reddit which I know is not a credible source but I did some research and the letter is legitimate, as in the inmate has been confirmed to have been in the same prison institution as Steven Avery at the same time.