Friday, March 1, 2019

Jussie Smollett & Robin Roberts: Good Morning America Interview Analyzed

The following are notes from team analysis of the interview Jussie Smollett gave to Robin Roberts, of Good Morning America.

******************************************************Jussie Smollett was an actor on a television program of which few knew his name or the program he was on. 

In mid January, he received an anonymous threatening letter which cited race and sexual preference, and was mailed to the studio where he filmed his television show. The letter included a white powder which later was shown to be harmless. 

About a week later, on January 29th, 2019, Smollett reported to police that two white male "MAGA" hat wearing men attacked him physically and verbally. The details included an attempted lynching with a noose, a chemical attack, punches, kicks and racial and homophobic taunts. This was alleged to have taken place approximately 2am during the "polar vortex" deep freeze Chicago experienced. 

The implausibility was noted immediately:

2 white males, wearing red MAGA hats, were prepared to know who Smollett was, where he would be (at a Subway Sandwich stop), at what time  (2am), and would have with them the instrument of asphyxiation (noose) and a bottle of bleach (in spite of the arctic temperatures). 

Statement Analysis deals with communication; and without a statement, an analyst could doubt the account, but the analyst would not "know" if the attack was real or fraudulent. 

In an interview, the implausibility would be dealt with via questions, whether it is a police interview or a journalistic interview. 

The first statement we were given publicly came from Smollett's manager, of whom Smollett claimed to have been on his cell phone during the alleged attack, of which the manager heard Smollett and could provide testimony. 

The manager said that they "placed" a noose "on" his neck. 

The word "placed" is incongruent with a violent attempted murder. The word "on" is incongruent with a lynching. 

 Even from this short statement, we were able to conclude: the manager does not believe Smollett was a victim of an attempted murder via asphyxiation with a rope. 

We then learned that Smollett was on security video in which he still had his Subway sandwich with him after the attack, and that he walked past a security guard without saying anything. 

We also learned that he had the noose still around his neck. 

It is human nature's instinct to survive and thrust off anything that might impede both our breathing and our ability to communicate a cry for help. 

Smollett spoke a short statement in public.  

“Let me startby saying that I’m OK.

 My body is strong but my soul is stronger. 

More importantlyI want to say thank you. The outpouring of love and support from my village has meant more than I will ever be able to truly put into words. I am working with authorities and have been 100%factualandconsistenton everylevel. 

Despite my frustrations and deep concernwith certain inaccuracies and misrepresentations that have been spread, I still believe that justice will be served. 

As my family stated, thesetypesof cowardly attacksare happening to my sisters, brothers and non-gender conforming siblings daily.

 I am not and should not be looked upon as an isolated incident. 
We will talk soon and I will address all details of this horrific incident, but I need a moment to process. 

Most importantly, during times of trauma, grief and pain, there is still a responsibility to lead with love.

 It’s all I know. 

And that can’t be kicked out of me.

With Love, respect &honor…Jussie.”

Analysis is posted of the above statement, but its conclusion is that 
this is not the language of experiential memory from a trauma
 producing assault. It was "deception indicated" and is worth 

After posting the analysis, two suspects were arrested in the assault  
of Smollett. 

The arrest does not change the language nor the principles of 

Police reiterated that Jussie Smollett was a victim and that the two 
being held were suspected in the assault. 

Smollett went to the show "Good Morning America" to be 
interviewed by a friend and colleague he trusted, Robin Roberts.

Producers spoke to the NY Post and reported that Smollett insisted 
that his friend conduct the interview. 

The following is the interview and analysis conducted by a team of
analysts working through the case. 


Though the police have concluded that Smollett orchestrated the 
alleged attack, it is useful to study his words. 

What can we know from his words?

Analytical Interviewing 

An Analytical Interview is one in which the subject's statement 
has been analyzed, and the interviewer is going to ask open 
ended questions, and use, whenever possible, the subject's own 
words. This is both natural and sound; it avoids interpretation and
in an interview, parroting back one's words can be reflexive; that is,
it allows for the interviewer to concentrate on the questions. A 
change of a subject's language is to represent a change of reality. 

Interviewers can literally teach a subject to lie; therefore, the 
interviewer does 20% or less of the talking; after all, it is the 
subject who has the information sought. 

When we conduct an interview, we use a legally sound open ended 
methodology that allows the subject to speak for himself. 

What does the analysis reveal about Robin Roberts?

Roberts has been accused of "soft ball" questions to her friend, 

Does the analysis agree with this criticism? 

The following is a transcription of the interview between ABC News Anchor, Robin Roberts and Jussie Smollett reference the alleged attack that took place in Chicago, IL.  


JS:        I’m pissed off.  
Attempted murder
Analysis Question: Did Robin Roberts know he was lying?     
 Context: Asphyxiation, bruising, humiliation, attempted disfiguration of a man who makes his living via appearance--- 
What emotions are expected?  This is about 3 weeks since the attack. 
Fear***  hypervigilance that wears out the immune system, brings insomnia, substance abuse  
Angry that they have not been caught, could be mixed with fear, anxiety, 
“We cannot un-experience trauma” (or crisis experiences) 

RR:       What is it thathasyou so angry?  Is it the…the attackers or…?
“what” is not the perpetrators.  This was a personal up close, trauma inducing, life threatening allegation of attack. This is a subtle distancing or breaking between the event and the people involved in it. This is not to ask, “why are YOU angry?” It moves responsibility, in a most subtle form, away from the subject, as if the anger is not something coming from him, due to the attack, but away from him towards a non-person.  Cops are people.  Commentators are people.  The assailants are people. We should be now asking if the interviewer knew this, before the interview. 
**The interviewer asks a compound question. Analytical Interviewing—avoid compound questions; they allow the subject to pick and choose which to answer. Here, there is more to it. We also ask open ended, legally sound questions because we (a) protect the rights of all. (b) we do not want to teach the subject how to lie 
Here, Roberts guided him to the appropriate answer:  “the attackers” in the wording of her question. She had a need to guide him. She is protecting him from himself. We must now ask, “Is she working to maintain or serve the narrative?” 
She did not trust Jussie to give the appropriate response, so she gave it to him. She knows him asnd she presupposes something; his need. 
Question: Does she know him well? Personally? (Can we tell from the language?)

JS:        It’s the attackers butit’salsotheattacks.
  It’slike…you know at first it was a thing of like listen, if I tell the truth then that’s it ‘cause it’s the truth. 
a.     its like” is theoretical, (comparative)  rather than being committed to the singular rare intrusive, trauma inducing event. 
b.     One cannot “un-experience” a horrific attack. Yet, he is concerned about being doubted instead of the attack, and the attackers still out there, who could return to finish such an unusual and shocking crime. If they were able to locate him, knowing his apartment location and where he eats, at a remote time (2am), and they were well prepared for the racial execution, they can find him again. 
c.      “but” refutes/minimizes that which preceded it. Whywould the “attacks” be more important than the on-the-loose attackers? 

RR:       Hm-hm. 
She listens
  It’slike…you know at first it was a thing of likelisten,if I tell the truththen that’sit‘causeit’s the truth.  
He now allows for us the choice of whether or not he told the truth.  As he allows for doubt, we believe his words.  He does not state “I told the truth” instead, he points to the hypothetical possibility of  telling of the truth as the truth. He tells us why it would be the truth—if he tells it.

JS:        Then it became a thing of like oh, how can you doubt that?  Like, how do you…how do you not believe that?  It’s the truth.   And then it became a thing of like oh, it’s not necessarily that you don’t believe that this is the truthyou  don’t evenwant to see the truth.  
a.     Questions posed in the answer
b.     Lack of commitment; he is unwilling to say, “I told the truth”
c.      Habitual liars go on the offensive and attack: he is attacking the moral character of whoever it is that does not believe “it” is the truth.  
d.     Manipulation: if you possess the great moral character that I possess, you would know it is true. Because if I said it, it would be true. He is accusatory of his doubters. It is not based upon, “I told the truth”, which is avoided. 
e.     Ego: he cannot tell us what happened to him, but he can tell us what is in the hearts and minds of those who doubt him. 
f.      He cannot bring himself to tell us that this happened and they are wrong. Instead, he accuses them of unethical or immorality of not wanting to “even” (persuasive) the truth. 

RR:       What happened that night Jussie? 

Best is to ask, "what happened" but the interviewer limited the scope of time to "that night." In criminal interviewing as well as journalism, this is an error. 

Principle: Where the subject begins the statement of "what happened" is where and when the event began in the subject's verbalized perception of reality. It is always important to the account. 

In various cases, the seemingly non-sensible beginning ended up proving to be true. 

Example:  a man comes home from work to find his wife murdered. When asked to write out "what happened" he began with his early morning trip to the gym. He did not begin by saying he came home from from work and found his wife murdered. 

Later the investigators learned why the murder "began" at the gym, where he met with and paid someone to kill her. 

JS:        WhenI landed in Chicago, and FRANK GATSON, who’s likemy uncle, and he’s alsomy creative director…
a.     He is asked “what” but answers “when”; making the question of “what happened?” to be very sensitive to him. It is, in this sense, a deflection. Timing (element) is vital. 
b.     Q. In terms of what happened “that night”, When did the attack begin?
A.     When he landed is when the attack began in his verbalized perception of reality.  We later learned that the two brothers said that when he landed, he sent them a text that it was “on” for the night. In this account: He began the account of the attack hours before it happened.
RR:       Hm-hm.
JS:        …and he picked me up.  And then we got back to the apartment.  There was no food and so I went out to Walgreens, thinking that they were 24-hours, and to have a smoke.  (Chuckles)

Note "And then" skips over critical time and it is in the unity of the pronoun. 
 We have a “cluster of blues” (3) which indicates extreme sensitivity here. FRANK GATSON is very important to the subject. Did Frank Gatson know something was being orchestrated?  We note the inclusion of the pronoun "we" between the subject and Gatson. This suggests possible  guilty knowledge of the fraudulent claim. We have his importance and the connection to Smollett in the ruse of going out for food. 

The need to explain is very sensitive. 
a. "so I went out..."
b. He further explains "why" without being asked why with "thinking that they were 24 hours" which is also unnecessary. 
c. It is so extreme in sensitivity that he gives a third reason for going out. 

When an unnecessary reason "why" is offered, without being asked, it is very sensitive to the subject. It often indicates that the subject is very concerned that he is going to be asked "why", so he preempts it. 

When he doubles up on the reason why, the analyst will now look for an alternate or competing reason why. 

When it is tripled? 

The subject has an alternate motive for going out. He is being deceptive. 

He could have said, "I went out to Subway when 2 guys..." instead of slowing down the pace (avoidance) with unnecessary and lengthy details.

This is possible insight, at this point, into a manipulative personality type who uses excessive detail to persuade while being deceptive.  See Casey Anthony for sample. 

RR:       Hm-hm.
JS:        Uh, Walgreens was closed.  Um, so called him up and I said, “Hey, I’m gonna run to Subway”, 
Choreographed language—he just left non-uncle a moment ago and now he is “call him up” 
which was across the street, “and I’m gonna get a salad, do you want anything?”  I went to the Subway and got the order. During that time, I texted my managerthinking that he was still in Australia, because he was on an Australian tour with one of his other clients.  
Deception Indicated regarding the contact with the manager. (note two “blues” of sensitivity above) of explanation of "why" without being asked. "Why did you call your manager at 2am?" would be a question likely asked. He preempts it. 
To “run” (very cold) only across the street appears to be incongruent with the stoppage to text the manager during a short “run” in the cold. 

RR:       Hm-hm.
JS:        I said, “Yo, call me when you can.”  He called me immediately and while he was on the phone, 
Immediate and while are elements of time. Time (repeated) where the “ear witness” is involved,  is the priority of this sentence, not the attack.

General principle:  In premeditation, the element of time is often dominant. 

I…uh, heard…as I was crossing the intersection, I heard “Empire” and I don’t answer to “Empire.”  (Chuckles) 

 Note location of “chuckling” here and at “smoke”    Here is a traumatic lynching attempt (murder)  Time continues to be the dominant theme; not the action. This is the result of where the “assault” began: when he landed. The timing is what is on his mind, coordinated with his uncle, manager and the “assailants” who had received his text message from the airport. 

Note the passivity (entering the psychological 'passive voice' of distancing) with "I heard" rather than the 2 men yelling at him.  Remember: this is a very intrusive personal attack and he is speaking in hindsight. 

By "personal" it is, to the subject, "personally done to him"; his body, his neck, his face, etc.

An unusual and hormonal event is, to the victim, most personal even when committed by strangers. It is not a universal or everyday occurrence. 

"When you're waiting for the sheriff to call about your granddaughter and someone is casing your house..." Phoebe DiPietro deception regarding the alleged kidnapping of her granddaughter. 

Kidnapping is not universal nor a normal occurrence. The granddaughter is not the granddaughter of "yours" or mine, it is her own. 

Her son had caused the child's death and she was covering for him. See "Baby Ayla" case for analysis. 

When we speak, we all reveal much about ourselves especially four elements:

1. Our background 
2. Our experiences 
3. Our priorities
4. Our dominant personality traits 

The subject has a need to portray himself as one of "love" and one of being physically "tough" as well as "superior" to others. As analysis indicated previously, the "love" is a projection of guilt, particularly as he holds gays, minorities and others in contempt as beneath him. This is why he is "love" who is to help "save" the world. It was a priority for him in his previous statement to let his audience know that he "fought back" (while holding on to his subway sandwich)

Context: Even in the context of a lynching, he maintains his “superiority” – he is above answering to “Empire” even at 2am on a Chicago street. 
Empire is related to the hoax -- $.  “we”---

RR:       Hm-hm.
JS:        My name ain’t “Empire.”  (Chuckes)
While being a victim of a near murderous lynching, he is telling us how superior he is.  He shows defiance before the camera while the perpetrators who perfectly timed the assault are at large. 

Attempted murder is "personal" and asphyxiation is both instinct reactive and trauma producing. 

Truthful people tell us what happened, what was said and so on. We always note the importance of reporting what did not happen, what was not said, etc. 

RR:       Hm.
JS:        Uh, and I didn’t answer.  I kept walking and then I heard“Faggot Empire Nigger.”  So, I turned around and I said, “What the fuck did you just say to me?”  And then I see the uh, attacker uh, masked and he said, “This MAGA Country Nigger” and punches me right in the face.  So, I punched his ass back.  And then um, we started tussling, you know. 

Deception Indicated –there is no “we” between two racist homophobic noose/bleach carrying killers and the victim. It indicates unity/cooperation with the perpetrators. The “KKK” killers are “tussling” 

There is much to see within this statement including:

a. his own fears and need to be "hero" 
b. his manipulative personality 
c. his contempt for his audience 
d. his willingness to exploit homosexuals and blacks (they (specifically)(  are incapable, along with the rest of his audience, of discerning his deception and his "dog whistle" attention he gives them.  

Note the need to tell his interviewer-audience why he punched the attackers--this is not a question anyone would ask. It is "unnecessary" which increases its sensitivity under the category of "why." 

Note "see" change to the present tense, where his baseline is past tense. 

Note "This MAGA country" and not "this is..." as he uses "urban slang" which is a form of ingratiation from a skilled manipulator. He wants us to believe that the attackers are white, while using "urban speak."

We note the inclusion of the word "ass" in his language. 

 It was very icy, and we ended up tussling by the stairs.

This is called a 
Confession by pronoun 

Pronouns are instinctive and intuitive. We use them millions of times in life and we are accurate in them. The word "we" indicates unity and cooperation. If the only deceptive point in this entire interview was the pronoun "we", it would still be "deception indicated."

He "confesses" his cooperation and unity with the attackers with this two-letter word.  

It is used in frauds, fake hate and in false claims of rape.  It is 100% reliable. 

  Uh, fighting, fighting, fighting.  There was a second person involved who was kicking me in my back and uh, then it just stopped. 
Person Gender neutral, polite, concealing identity via gender—SSA 
“involved” the language of commentary not attack 

He is concealing the identity of the attacker by concealing the gender. 

 And they ran off. 

He is the hero of his own script. 
 And I saw where they ran. 
This is very likely to be true: he saw where they ran. (reliable) 
There is no bleach and there is no noose in the account to this point.  This would be the most trauma producing elements. He portrayed the initial yelling as passive and will do the same with these critical details. 

Next we see an example of rather awkward language that non trained and trained alike recognize.  It does not proceed from experiential memory which is why it is readily discerned: 
 And the phone was in my pocket, but it had fallen out and it was sitting there, and my manager was still on the phone. 

Besides skipping time and his self rebuttal, he gives the phone a human body posture. This is a verbal indication that he placed it there.

"The drugs were sitting on the coffee table." is an example. Drugs don't sit, walk, lay down, etc.  It is a human description generally because the human connection by the subject. 

He now gives the reason why he picked up his phone. This is unnecessary (a) and it is to explain "why" (b) making it very sensitive. When coupled with the human body posture, we may conclude deception. 

 So,I picked up the phone and I said, “BRANDON” and he’s like, “What’s going on?”  And I said, “I was just jumped!” And I…then I looked down and I see that there’s a rope around my neck.  Which I hadn’t…Ihadn’tseen that…
He “looked down” but he could not feel  a noose around his neck?  Recall his manager said they
“placed” it “on” his neck. 

Note incongruence of communicative language "said" is not "told" or even "yelled" coming right after a near murderous event. 

Did you notice the change, again, to the present tense? It is a "rope" that he "see" and he only can "see" it when he "looks down." 

RR:       You hadn’t noticed that before?  You didn’t see…
JS:        No, because it was so fast.  You know what I’m saying?  It was so fast.

No psychological wall of truth from a trauma producing experience. He has the need to explain "why" he did not 
"notice" it before. 

"You know what I'm saying?" is to reach to his friend for support, unity (ingratiation factor) and a signal that he is in need. 

RR:       How long did this all take…
JS:        It felt like minutes, but it probably was like 30 seconds.  Honestly.  can’ttell you honestly.  Um, I noticed the rope around my neck, and I started screaming and I said, “There’s a fuckin’ rope around my neck!”  
Note the soft “said” where told, screaming, yelling, etc, is consistent with the attack
Note the use of "honestly" indicates that he really wants to be believed here (the language of dishonesty). We note that this is something he repeats, increasing the sensitivity of need to be believed rather than the psychological wall of truth that victims experience and exhibit in their language. 

"noticed" is often used when one is looking in expectation, though here it could be the easy parroting back of Robin Roberts' language. 
When he says that he can’t honestly tell us, we need to believe him.
RR:       Did you get any kind of description of the attackers?
JS:        I gave a body description and I, you know, because I saw this (does a mask simulation with his fingers over his eyes)but…and…you know, right here, or whatever but I didn’t see…I can’t tell you what color their eyes were.  can’t tell you…and did not see anything except the second person, I saw running away.  And the first person, yah, I saw…saw his stature. I gave the description as best as I could.  You have to understand, also, that it’s Chicago, in winter.  People can wear ski masks and nobody’s going to question that.

Linguistic Disposition 

LD Positive, “persons” who even have a valid reason for wearing masks.  He is unified with them (“we”) and he likes them. (favorable LD)  Conceals gender.  Consider possible sexual attraction/activity to one or both. 
RR:       The police have gone through a lot of video and they were able to capture an image of two people of interest.  Have you seen that image?
(Shows image of two subjects walking down street)
JS:        Hm-hm.

Nothing more about the image? This is not expected.  This was a "crisis experience" that should produce a reaction. 
RR:       And do you believe that they could possibly be of the attackers?  
JS:        I do.  
RR:       What is it about their…their size or what…why do you feel that they could possibly be?

It is not lost on the interviewer that he remained gender neutral. 
JS:        ‘Cause I was there. 

"Cause" is not sensitive; he was asked "why?"

Note it is his presence, not his experience, for the basis of his assertion. "I was there"

He avoids giving any description of the men even though he "punched" the "ass" of one. 

 For me, when that was released, I was like (nods his head yes) okay, we’re getting somewhere.  I don’t have any doubt in my mind that that’s them.  Never did. 

Note "Never did" has no pronoun. 

He would be willing to let not only two innocents be falsely arrested, but his two actors.  This is part of his supremacy 
RR:       Why did you hesitate to wanna call the police?  

This should produce a short answer such as, "I was ashamed." This answer allows insight into his personality. The expectation of impact of trauma should include fear that the perpetrators are on the loose, found him once and can find him again, as well as the danger that these two racist homophobic killers pose to black gay men. He is, in his own words, a man of "love" so we expect the language of trauma, fear and concern to be a priority. 

JS:        You know (smiles), there’s a level of pride there. 

He skillfully avoids using the pronoun "I"; this would be a direct lie about the delay. "there's a level of pride" is not his own in a most unique, unusual, unexpected trauma producing event. This was not a universal event. It was personal, dangerous and he was specifically targeted. 

He immediately goes to the "crowd sourcing guilt" where it is spread around. 

Overall observation from statement and behavioral analysis (psycho-linguistic profile)

It is very likely that when he was a young boy, he had a mother who alleviated him of personal responsibility. 

This is where a boy comes home having been corrected in school and not only pleads that "everyone was doing it" but that he, himself, alone, was targeted by the teacher. 

It attacks the adult; while it portrays self as the victim. 

It is something that, if uncorrected, can lead to a myriad of problems in life. 

If encouraged?  Narcissism deep within the personality: It could lead to...Jussie Smollett, manipulative self deceived "savior" of the world. 

he moves the topic away from what happened to him to now calling out to homosexuals (exploitative contempt) 

We live in a society where as a gay manyou are considered somehow to be weak and I’m not weak.  (Tearing up)

Rather than be traumatized and scared for his life, his first statement after the alleged attack was to portray himself as tough. It is to reveal to the contrary. See original analysis. 

 I am not weak

Masculinity honors weakness. In training, we use the historical definitions.

"Masculinity is the sacrifice of strength for right purposes." 

This is a projection of guilt: "I am not weak" is his declaration of his "love" and how he used racist language in his attacks on the president. His need to cover weakness is so acute, that he was (and is) wiling to harm many, including, as the CPD showed, victims of violence, genuine victims of homophobic or racist attacks, etc. It is the opposite of masculinity but a "faux" version, sometimes called "machismo."  This is one reason why physical language is present including "punch" and "fight back" as priorities. 

He holds to the expectation that he will receive sympathy from gay men who may have been considered "weak" -- it is to deliberately target them emotionally.  He then unites himself, via pronoun, to show his unity: 

 And we are, as a people, are not weak.  

The "people" were not almost murdered in the middle of the night on a city street. 

The most unique of horrific events is now used to sermonize and exploit. This is insight into what he is capable of doing. 

What would have happened if two innocent white males were wrongfully imprisoned? 

It is very likely that they would have been harmed, if not murdered, in prison. 

Consider that when reading his tweets about his "love" for others. The unnecessary sermonizing and declarations reveal the contrary. 

The pride was present tense and now it is past: 

So…I mean, I can accept that there was pride there.  

There was also privacy. 

In an attempted lynching in which two crazed racist homophobic killers carried a noose and bleach, the context is not one of privacy or shame. 

He is exploiting genuine rape and sexual assault victims for his purpose. 

He did not want the cops' body cameras on at a time when he should have been scared out of his mind, hiring armed guards and doing everything possible to help police make him safe by capturing the two criminals. 

 You know, at the end of the day, look what has happened you know?  

he is acutely aware of Roberts' presence here. He looks to her for "agreement"

Look what has happened.  

So, I don’t…I’m glad that Frank called the police.  I’m glad that we reported it. 

He unifies with Frank again, via "we" 

His contempt is difficult to contain. He turns it now to the police, in a subtle manner, excusing his own delay by adding time to their response.  

Chicago, in spite of the nation's strictest gun laws, is awash in violent shootings. Consider the language from the press conference they held upon his arrest.  

 Um, during that time before they came…took them about maybe a half hour to come and during that time, I was looking at myself, just like checking myself out and I saw the bruise on my neck. 

Time is sensitive to him; 
we continue to note language for the PL profile
Note the need to explain why he was "looking at myself" with "just like" (weak commitment) as if to justify the spotting of the bruise. 

Note the location of the bruise is on his neck.

But he had to "look down" to see the noose. The noose, according to the "ear witness" manager, was "placed" on his neck. 

"you know" shows the awareness of the interviewer-audience 

 You know like the little um, the rope burn around my neck.

the "placed" rope (not "noose") did not burn him (his language) but it is to be accepted that it is there with the article, "the." 

Having not felt the burn, nor even "noticed" the noose, he now introduces it not with  "a burn from the rope" but "the rope burn"...articles do not lie. 

"A man put the gun in my back and asked me for my money..."

He moves back to present tense language 

 And then I…but I smell bleach. I know the smell of bleach and I saw on my sweatshirt, it had marks on it, like spots on it, when you have a bad bleach job.  

This produced the present tense "I smell bleach" indicating that it did not come from experiential memory (this is from the language; not from the implausible circumstances already addressed). 

Note the need to prove "why" it was bleach is both sensitive and unexpected.  

It is not likely when someone ways, "I smelled bleach" that any of us would ask, "Well, uh, how do you know what bleach smells like?"

The subject is an accomplished (habitual) and entitled liar. 

So, then I was like, “There’s bleach on me too. “  So, when the police came, um, I kept the clothes on.  I kept the rope…
RR:       So, you had the rope on the entire time?

It is human reflex to "fight back" against anything that 

a. cuts off our ability to breath
b. hinders us from being able to call for help 

It is reflexive to immediately tear off the instrument of asphyxiation (in fear, disgust, panic, etc)

He had the need to explain his actions. 

This is where commentators have accused Robin Roberts of "softball questions" (something she did not do with the Chicago Police Superintendent) 

He now tells us what it "wasn't" (negative) 

JS:       I mean it wasn’t like wrapped around, but yah, it was around because I wanted them to see.  

This is why the need to accept the burn without introducing a rope burn. The necessity of explanation of an act in defiance of human nature is given. 

I wanted them to see what this was

 I told them what happened. 


It is impossible to tell anyone "everything"
It is also expected that with such a traumatic event, he will remember more details, especially through sleepless nights, as he considers the identities of the two men. 

By making this claim, he is effectively seeking to stop the questions. 

This is no different than a guilty parent reporting their child missing and claiming "that's all I know" when innocent parents will incessantly search their minds for even the slightest detail that can help facilitate the safe return of their child.

He is not hindering the flow of information here:  he is stopping it. Since he has "told them everything" there is no reason to talk to them again. 

He now portrays himself as superior in politeness. Recall he apologized to co workers for not returning their calls while he was in jail.  

This is a manipulator's language in which he has had success or the expectation of success since early childhood. 

Even under the duress of such a vicious attack, he is "polite" in his portrayal.

This is an exaggerated sense of self, which is consistent with his "savior" or messianic public persona of "love" and "respect"; the two elements that are strangers to him. 

I also asked them to turn their body cams off ‘cause they were trying to stay in the hallway and I was like, “Please just come in. Like, I don’t want a big scenewith my neighbors.”  

Next he wants his audience to know how cooperative he was. The "Good guy" principle in Statement Analysis reveals the contrary: 

And with like, with the second round of police officers, um, I went down to where it happened, and I walked them through exactlywhat happened and I looked up and I saw that there was a camera directly on the light post that is in the intersection, so I’m like, “There it is.“  
            (Video breaks to picture of video camera and short news clip about video camera)
JS:        And then the detective told me that the camera inside of the casing was facing north, so they didn’t have it and that was disappointing.  
RR:       The vast majority of people have been supportive and loving and understanding.  And then as time has gone on, and that there’s no um…it’s you know, 2:00 o’clock in the morning, you’re going to Subway, sub-zero…

He disrupts her to give a small unnecessary detail.  He has been attacked in an attempted lynching; he should have no concern for doubters: 
JS:        Subway’s open 24 hours.  

The rest of the answer is fascinating language: 

Like, people kill me when they say things like that because it’s like Subway is open 24 hours for a reason so that when you hungry at night and you ain’t got no food, you go to Subway.  

Note the abundance of words used to explain something he is confident in; Subway is 24 hours. 

Liars who are fabricating cling to small detail that is true and even verifiable, for psychological safety. 

Next note questions (rhetorical) posed in the interview. In analytical interviewing we do not answer the questions. 

We ask open ended questions and listen to the response. We believe the subject and let him guide us. If deception is present, other than pronouns, he must talk us out of our position of belief. 

We use the subject's own language and do not, whenever possible, introduce new language. 

We reflect his own words back to him; these are words he is most comfortable with. 

A deceptive subject should not be able to pass a polygraph in which his own words are used. 

The-the camera uh, facing north.  How is that my issue?  

Note the question includes him ("my") having an "issue." 


He returns to "dog whistle" calling in  reinforcements. The three identities that follow are all held in contempt: 

It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim, or aMexican, or someone Black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more…a lot more.  

Note hi appeal to Muslims, Mexicans and Blacks.  He is a racist who is not only willing for innocent whites to possible suffer, but his contempt for Muslims and Mexicans is noted in his attempt to ingratiate himself for selfish purpose. 

But what of "someone Black"? 

Consider that he was willing, according to CPD, to allow the brothers reported from Nigeria, to sit in jail for 47 hours and to face possible prosecution.  

This is a form of supremacy that he identifies himself with. 

Attack strategy should not be lost on CPD: Doubters are “racists”:  those who see “racism” everywhere project their own heart. This is not a liar who will confess unless it means a lighter sentence. He is likely to attack until there is nothing left to attack, including using racism, attacking police in general as well as his expectation of support from political, Hollywood and media professionals. 

He now move from a singular personal horrific attack, to 300 million Americans in the need to mitigate or escape guilt: 

And that says a lot about the place that we are in our Country right now. 
He moves the scene of a horrific traumatic attempted murder to the entire country.  This is what guilt looks like on the run, seeking over or “crowd sourcing”; no different than a child. 
Condemnation of others continues. Recall his personal fear and the need to be the "tough guy" as he chooses his words: 
 The fact that we have these fear mongrels. These people that are trying to separate us and it’s just not okay.  

His political narrative meets alignment with his host, her network, the establishment of celebrities, media and the dominant theme of this movement. 

This gives us insight into what he expected, even if found out, as Hollywood, for example, blamed Mike Pence, and media attacked whites, claimed "Make America Great" hats are white supremacist signals and we saw cases since where innocents were physically attacked for wearing the hat. He adds and multiples the divide for, as CPD said, his own gain. 

Interesting that he calls them "mongrels"; that is, dogs without pedigree. This may be similar to those who should be "deplored."

He knows what he is doing. He went from laughter to tears readily. 

We may consider the CPD's stated motive to get more money from his job, but also consider his own words, including twitter messages as you consider his next statement: 

RR:       Hm-hm. 
JS:        It’s just not okay.  And for all of the people…the next time that you see someone report something, maybe well after the fact that it happened, and you say to them, “Well why you wait until now?” Just remember that mine was reported right away and look what has happened.  

He warns future genuine victims which may cause them to not report an assault. 

This is why he must champion "love" (unnecessary language) and why any legislation that is linguistically morally based is likely to be the opposite when under the lens of statement analysis. 

The moral high ground claimed is noted when it is unnecessary language. The "virtue signaling" allowed us to predict which celebrities would be accused in the #metoo movement. 

"There's no excuse for elder abuse!" is presented as the moral high ground, as if there is a "resistance" movement to the present phenomena of abusing elders. It makes the owner of the bumper sticker feel superior, but it is "unnecessary" language. This is always deemed important in the statement. 

It is like proposing "anti lynching" legislation.  CPD stated that the noose was a symbol of terror which he was unafraid to use to obtain his ends. 

RR:       The phone.  
JS:        Hm-hm.
RR:       When did you…because as you said, it was a…an accurate account…
JS:        Hm-hm.
RR:       …of the timeline.  Valuable information.  When did you make that information available to the police?  

The "softball" is noted. He did not turn over his phone to police even though he claimed it had evidence. 

This is very important information.  

He delayed for weeks that which any victim would give immediately.

He had a reason to delay. 

We now seeks its level of importance- sensitivity. 

Linguistically, he is "with the phone" at this point.  Note what happens to the language: 

JS:        We gave…we had to give the phone records um…which they didn’t originally ask for my phone records.  They asked for my phone.  They wanted me to give my phone to the tech for three to four hours.  I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna do that.  
a. He goes from being alone with his phone to "we" while using self censoring ("We gave, we had") 
b. He blames police: "they didn't originally ask for..."
c.  He qualifies what they did not do specifically with the phone "records."
d. This is then repeated (extra emphasis, against the 'law of economy' increasing its sensitivity) 

We note the inclusion of "I'm sorry" from polite people as well as from guilty people.  It is not expected in this context of hormonal crisis event (attack). It is highlighted in red as a signal of guilt. The phone is producing a change of language ("records") and an indicator of guilt. The phone is very important to him. 

Linguistic Disposition: 
He has lower LD for police than for attackers – this is insight into his contempt for authority as well as for gay males, blacks, Muslims etc. 

What produced this?

The phone. 

RR:       Why?
JS:        Because I have private pictures and videos and numbers.  
He did not give over his phone for several weeks because of:
1.    Pictures
2.    Videos
3.    Numbers
This is a signal of illegal activity on his phone -- 

The illegal activity could be the planning of the "event" yet in context, the original analysis cited two areas of which the police would need to check:

a.  child pornography, pedophilia 
b. substance abuse 

The latter has been reported since. 

Consider that the interviewer is familiar with the subject as the rest of his response is examined, as well as the questions from Roberts. 

The priority began with "photos" first and then "video" and now on to things that could readily be obtained and that no one, in such a dire emergency (the attempted murderers are on the loose) would hesitate or object. 

My partner’s number, my family’s number, my castmates’ number, my friends’ numbers, my private emails, my private songs, my private voice memos.  I don’t know what that’s gonna be to hand over my phone for…and honestly by then, inaccurate, false statements had already been put out there.  
Demonizing police  as a reason why he did not hand over his phone noted. Noted is the need for "honesty" used. 

Note "to hand over" 
Note uncertainty "I don't know what that's gonna be to hand over..."
(Video switches to news release about Smollett submitting his phone records and them being “limited and heavily redacted.”)
RR:       What other ones had you heard that were inaccurate? 

She ignores the change of language and the obvious lack of cooperation. 

She ignores the context of an attempted murder and the status of the homophobic racist MAGAs on the loose. 

In this sense, it may be considered "soft ball" questioning, but consider whether or not this is to facilitate the concealment of information as we continue to progress through his words.

He offers the tangent to attack police and she goes with it.  

JS:        That I had said that they were wearing MAGA hats. I never said that

"Never' being unreliable since he met with police specifically in a high hormonal crisis situation. 

He then belies the status of true victim: something to "add" to a story, which is his methodology in deception. (see Walgreens) 

 I didn’t  need to add anything like that.  

In an assault, there is no need to "add" anything as the experience itself cannot be "un experienced."

This is a form of resolve within a victim that even in child victims, where a perpetrator seeks to wear down, we find the language remains committed to the experience. 

One cannot "un experience" trauma, and this is very early after it was alleged to have happened; in which processing has been only in the infant stage. 

This is confessional.  He is confident in his deception (personality) and sees no need to add details. He has yielded the premeditation of his hoax and likely gave this many hours of planning. 

He is, when we believe the account, a "victim", meaning he has no need to portray himself as a victim. The need to portray as such is flagged for deception, similar to the need to persuade. Having experienced something horrific, the psychological wall of truth is powerful.  Having experienced this as an adult, there is no forgetting nor is there any acceptance of lying. Recall his statement, "if I lied..." 

He returns to where he is most comfortable:  emotional manipulation. 

He likely has played the victim his entire life: 

They called me a “faggot.”  They called me a “nigger.”  

He appeals to Robin Roberts using both homosexuality and race. Note sex before racial slur. 

There’s no which way you cut it. 

Interesting that the word "cut" is used here. Analysts would explore as to possible reasons why...

early planning to use a knife? 
"cutting a check" to the brothers?

Unknown but this is something a therapist would likely explore at length. 

That this is, in his language, a production is evident, but here he tells us that it is a production of which he, the executive producer, is both proud of, and not in need of anyone's help: 

 I don’t need some MAGA hat as the cherry on top of some racist sundae.

Jussie Smollett is a racist. 

Note "cherry" may be associated with sex, including initial sexual contact (introducing). 

Without belaboring the point here, there are a number of phrases that may pertain to sexuality in his language. 

That it is on his mind is immediately evident here: 

 I’ve heard that it was a date gone bad,which I so resent…that narrative.  

Someone who survived an attempted lynching "resents" a "narrative" that he would have a "date" (sexual) that "gone bad."

This is a sensitive point to him and reveals his sense of supremacy as a celebrity (his view) would leave him above having to find partners for sex. Note both condescending language and the return to this notion of being "above" the random seeking of sexual partners. 

RR:       Hm.
JS:        I’m not gonna go out and get a tuna sandwich and a salad to meet somebody.  That’s ridiculous and it’s offensive

He has given more linguistic emotion about his perceived insult than he showed over the attackers. 

Elitist: he is above such things, yet he then admits not being above such things in the past:

 Yes, there’s GRINDR, yes there’s JACK’D.  Yes, there’s all of these things, which I have not been on in years.  I can admit that I was on that back in the day.

There is likely internet proof and those who can come forward. He preempts this. 

If this was his practice, why is it resented and offensive now? This speaks to his own perception of entitlement. It may strengthen the view of CPD that he intended to levy this into a raise from his TV program. 

RR:       Hm-hm.

He then moves to his perception of moral high ground: 

JS:        I was single.  You know what I’m saying?

He is "better than that" (telling us to the contrary) and then looks, via the question, to his friend (Interviewer) for support. 
RR:       Hm-hm.

JS:        But, I have not been on that in years.  

He give a second reason - first was not being "single" and now he gives "time" for being superior to this practice of meeting strangers for sex. 

This is vital information for the interview strategy; to allow him to play the role of morally superior savior who loves and respects, which would allow him to talk a great deal, which yields us the information we need to discern the truth. 

After years, cops become very good at recognizing this and will allow themselves to be in a subordinated quiet role, as they gather in the critical information. 

Next note the emotional strength of his words, which is the "linguistic distortion" towards this notion. 

his venom is not towards the racist homophobic MAGAs that attacked him.  He showed more venom towards "MAGA" "cherry" in general (the deplorable white males in red hats) in the nation: 

But aside from that, it’s offensive and I absolutely resent that narrative because it’s bull.  It’s bull.  And it’s unfair, it’s unfair to the investigation.  It’s unfair to…I hate this word but it’s unfair to the victim. 

It is not unfair to him, but to "the victim."

Note the emotional commitment with "offensive, "absolutely", "resent" and the need to explain why he has this response (blue). Note repetition of "bull."

Call him a liar, call him an exploiter but DO NOT say that he, as a celebrity, has to go through the internet to have sex. 

This is an obsession with self, that is centered in sex.  There is likely depression and substance abuse beneath it. 

He uses "victim" in relation to the perceived slight.  

In context, someone who is attacked, attempted to be lynched, beaten, bleached and taunted, is not a victim, but if you say "you can't get a date without using the internet" he will rage. This is who he is. 

This is ignored by the interviewer who received no such emotion about the "persons" who attacked him. 

RR:       What were your… your injuries?  What were your…

Note the plain question is deflected. Note passive voice (subtle psychological removal or distancing) 

JS:        Um, they did x-rays.  I didn’t have…it was reported that I had like fractured ribs or cracked ribs or something like that.  That wasn’t true.  I was just in a lot of pain.  You know, my clavicle was messed up.  My rib was um, was bruised but I wasn’t…nothing was cracked.  Like, I walked into the hospital.  I walked out of the hospital.  

RR:       Why do you think you were targeted?

This is to allow the narrative to come to the forefront: 
JS:        I can just assume, I mean, I come really, really, hard against “45”.  I come really, really hard against his administration and I don’t hold my tongue.  
            (Video breaks to recording of President Trump making a statement about Smollett’s incident.)

Consider the sexual language used above from the subject. 
Consider the narrative between friends who share race and sex with the editing bringing the video where President Trump calls the attack "horrible." 

RR:       Were you aware he made that statement?  
JS:        I saw it.  I don’t know what to say to that, you know?  Um, you know, I appreciate him not brushing over it.
RR:       And there is no doubt, in your mind, what motivated this attack?
JS:        I can only go off of their words.  I mean, who says “faggotEmpire nigger” “this MAGA Country nigger”,ties a noose around your neck, and pours bleach on you?  And this is just a friendly fight?  

We have the questions in the answer. We do not answer. We recognize that the subject may be quizzing himself. 

We have the pronoun distancing language of "your" neck. 

We have the additional information of tying it around his neck. 

The rope is now a "noose" (change of reality) of which it is not "placed" but "tied" 

We note the subject's familiarity with racist slurs in his own language.  

I will never be the man that this did not happen to.   

Please note the embedded admission, "this did not happen to" in his wording. 

'The brain knows the truth...' and sometimes it slips out,. See McCann "Embedded Confession" documentary. 

RR:       Hm.

JS:        I’m forever changed.  And I don’t subscribe to the idea that everything happens for a reason, but I do subscribe to the idea that we have the right and responsibility to make something meaningful out of the things that happen to us.  Good and bad.  

RR:       What do you feel people need to hear the most from this story?  

She called it a "story" while the alleged white male perpetrators are at large. This is to reveal what she believed or knew. 

Here the word "just" (dependent word) indicates that he is comparing the truth to something else: 

JS:        I think that what people need to hear is just the truth.  Is just the truth, ‘cause everybody has their own idea.  

Since he reported what happened, the audience has no need to hear "just" the truth; he gave it already...unless he did not.  This is unnecessary language which is "necessary" due to the deception. 

He projects the suffering from the attack to others. This is the Messianic complex of one who "loves" and is helping to "save" the world from MAGA, Donald Trump, racism, homophobia, etc.  

It is noted that among the many hate crimes covered, there is a death of genuine hate crimes in a population of 300 million people, to the point where fraud is needed to make a point. This is his "responsibility" and his "right" (entitlement to his victim status and, perhaps, a raise from Fox) which gives him the moral "high ground" to which he believes he owns. This is consistent with some of the Hollywood elitist response of "well, yeah but it could have happened..."

Some are healing and some are hurtful, but I just want young people…

he "wants young people" in context of the emotional response and volume of words given to the sexual dating -- these "young people" are now specified further: 

young members of the LGBTQ community,

This division is now made more specific, smaller still: 

 young, Black children to know how strong that they are.

he introduces "children."

Michael Jackson, in his own statement after describing "love" of children wrote, "I have loved children all around the world."

 To know the power that they hold in their little pinky.  

This is his choice of wording. Although beyond the scope here, I believe Smollett was a victim of early childhood sexual abuse, very likely by one of whom he and possibly his family, trusted.

The announcer ignores his introduction of "children" in the interview about an attempted murder: 
RR:       Have you ever been threatened before?
JS:        Yah.  I get threatened all the time on Twitter and Instagram and DMs and things like that. It’s like, but…you know, I’m a public figure, I’m very outspoken.  Sometimes maybe too outspoken, but it’s who I am, you know so, I get the idea of pissing people off.  That you’re gonna rub people the wrong way.  

He is "front and center" and he uses more sensory language following his introduction of sex and then children in context,. 

            (Video goes out to talk about a week before the attack, a letter was sent to the Fox Studio with threatening language and laced with a powdery substance, likely Tylenol.). The analysis showed:
a. There was no threat. A genuine threat is a "linguistic commitment" by the author. "I will kill you" is a strong threat. "I will kill you if you don't..." allows for the recipient to alter the threat. "You will die" is truthful; we all will die. There is no linguistic threat.  

b. The childish drawing was "comforting" (non threatening) and self revelatory

c. No one held the gun in the picture. 

He is likely to face federal charges if he mailed it (USPS).  

If his attorneys continue to attack police, expect resolve of law enforcement and its fraternity to increase. He held them in contempt, abused the good will they have worked diligently in race relations in Chicago to obtain and this had local and federal response. 

RR:       Do you think there’s a link between the letter and the attack?
JS:        Um…
RR:       And you did mention it to the police right away about the…
JS:        Absolutely.  
RR:       …letter?
JS:        Absolutely.  Um, just because on letter it had a stick figure hanging from a tree with a gun pointing towards itwith the words that said, “Smollett Jussie, you will die Black”. There was no address, but the return address said, in big red, you know, like CAPS, “MAGA”.  Did I make that up too?  

See Roger Clemons regarding asking rhetorical questions. It is a tactic of manipulation and is sometimes truthful.  Note embedded (he is not quoting anyone else) of

"I make that up" in his words. He added "too" which now combines other things that were said. 

It is confessional. 

It is something we hear from teenagers who have gone to critical thinking while being deceptive. 

What follows next is disturbing: 
JS:        I want that video found so badly because for probably four reasons.  Number one, I want them to find the people that did it.  Number two, I want them to stop being able to say allegedattack.  Number three, I want them to see that I fought backand I want a little gay boy, who might watch this, (tearing up) to see, that I fought fuckin’ back.  And it does not take anything away from people that are not able to do that, but I fought back.  They ran off, I didn’t.  

He gave his most emotionally strong position about sex, not the attack. 

He was offended, and used strong language, showing great sensitivity to this while he is to be talking about an attempted murder. 

He then introduced children. 

Note he embedded "I want a little gay boy" from the man who held his phone back for weeks from police, and finally only submitted a print out.  

These are his words.

Robin Roberts knows him personally. 

What does she say?

RR:       What do you say to a young, gay man?  A young, gay person?

It is natural, low effort and expected to repeat back (parrot) the subject's word. 

It take additional effort to alter the subject's words. 

A change of language represents a change of reality. 

The analyst should carefully consider how that the interviewer is deliberately providing cover for Smollett. 

The intensity of language used by the subject in a vicious racist homophobic attack is saved for his personal sexual activity.

He refused to hand over his phone with the first reason being "photos", followed by "video" 

He introduced "young" and then moved to "children", to which she ignored. 

Yet when he said "I want a little gay boy" she changed his language.  

This is alarming language from Smollett who repeatedly emphasizes his "love" and centers himself before all, has expended not only CPD's budget but held the entire nation captive for as long as his narrative would stand. (behavioral). 

When one is driven to please self without regard to the cost of others, should this pleasure built up tolerance (the hormonal response), it is unknown where it will end. 

Child abusers do not care to consider the life long impact upon their victims. 

Victimized themselves, most become highly empathetic towards the suffering of others. 

Those who do not become indifferent to the suffering of others and may victimize, even the most innocent, children. 

Smollett's statement is known to be deceptive, yet it is valuable to training deception detection. 

It is also something that should be carefully examined by therapists, psychologists, child protective service professionals, sex crimes units, and others trained in statement analysis. 

Smollett is remarkable in two things:

a. His need to portray himself as "love"
b. His lack of basic human empathy or consequence upon others. 

There are likely those close to him that know the "two Jussies"; the presentation Jussie of "love, respect" who is a champion of social "justice"; and the Jussie of whom depraved indifference and narcissism drives him to harm others. 

I believe Roberts is one close enough to him that she knew it was a hoax, skillfully avoided questioning that would reveal this, but also protected her friend from himself; in particular, the language that ties children and sexual activity together.

Thus far, we have learned that substance abuse is indicated. 

His phone should be subpoenaed and examined.  His language indicates risk. 

note the unnecessary declarations of higher morality: 
JS:        To learn to fight!   And I don’t just mean to learn to fight.  (Mimics boxing.)  I mean, learn to fight.  Learn to be a fighter.   I’m not advocating violence at all, so let’s be clear about that.  If you’re going to die, fight until you do, because if you don’t fight, you have no chance.  I have fought for love.  I’m an advocate.  I respect too much the people, who I am, now, one of those people…

Chicago PD may have good reason to tie the motive to money. They were skillful and masterly in their statements. They held the brothers without charge to give them insight into what they would be facing. They, I believe, emboldened Jussie Smollett to go on GMA with this interview, by affirming his victim status.  

They handled the "politically correct" theater of danger with finesse. 

It must have been challenging for them to keep a straight face while interviewing the diminutive Smollett while listening to him boast of his physical prowess and his great "love" and "respect" for others. 

Jussie Smollett targeted Donald Trump with vile, racist language and he expected and received applause and acclaim for it. 

It is likely he expected the same, even if caught, as if this "could have happened"; particularly from the extreme narrative media, of which the personal animosity towards Trump is incessant. 

RR:       Hm-hm.

He continues to preach: 
JS:        who have been attacked in any way.  You do such a disservice when you lie about things like this.  
RR:       If the attackers are never found…
JS:        (Sighs)…
RR:       …how will you be able to heal?
JS:        Um…(Starts tearing up)… I don’t know.  Let’s just hope that they are.  You know what I’m saying?  Like let’s…let’s not go there yet.  Let’s um…(wipes nose/eyes with tissue)…I was talking to a friend and I said, “I just want them to find them.”  

He prepares his audience for the inevitable as he hedges his bets: 

And she said, “Sweetie, they’re not gonna find them.” And it just made me so angry, because…so I’m just gonna be left here with this? 

He lets us know "they're not gonna find them", which is to conceal and protect himself. 

He then says this will make him "so angry" (the attack did not generate emotional language) and he has the need to explain why two racist homophobic killers on the loose makes him angry:

because they found him once, they'll finish the job?
because he is worried about gay black males in Chicago being targeted?

The natural response is self preservation from such a violent attack and then safety for others: 

 You know what I’m saying?  Like, I’m just gonna be left here 

This is the language we find at the end of false allegations of rape. This sometime reveals the motive (humiliation at being "left") 

This is consistent with what Chicago PD said about him being upset that the anonymous threatening letter did not cause him to receive the attention he thought it would. 

He is "left" -- that is, abandoned, alone, insignificant, unnoticed, etc.  This affirms the assertion made by CPD. 

with…with like…so they get to go free

He is "left" while they "go free"

and what do they do?

 and go about their life 

They get to go about their life (singular) while he is bereft of attention. 

Next he tells us through a weak assertion that his attackers are not likely going to repeat this performance: 

and possibly attack someone else?  

Not him, the original target of "Empire", race and sex, with precise coordination and tools of death at the ready, but only "possibly" -- the weak commitment is incongruent with the context. 

He is "left" still: 

And I’m here to left with…left with the aftermath of this bull? 

Three "blues" of sensitivity.  Although I do not doubt CPD motive, there are competing motives in the language.  I believe money is easily first, as fame and even control are used to obtain money, and although he hates Trump, I believe Trump was but a means to his end. 

He wants the attention.  He wants desperately to be relevant. This in spite of his status (or what was his status at the time) of high paying TV actor. 

With two crazed killers on the loose, the only comfort is in catching them so they do not "find" Smollett again.  Yet, he allows for them to be not caught.

His "linguistic disposition" towards the attacker (singular) is consistently positive. This is how we identify the author of an anonymous threatening letter:

We set the context and follow the linguistic disposition.  

It is how frauds are caught. 

That’s not cool to me.   That’s not okay.  (tears stream down his face) So, I understand how difficult it will be to find them but we gotta.  I still want to believe with everything that has happened.  That there’s something called justice.  ‘Cause if I stop believing that then what’s it all for?  

Another question posed to self. 

RR:       Thank you Jussie.

JS:        Thank you.  

If you wish to receive training for yourself, your department or company, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 


Anonymous said...

Looks like a wealth of information in this analysis, Peter. I look forward to reading it in more detail.


Mike Dammann said...

"JS: Because I have private pictures and videos and numbers. "

"Because I have private pictures, videos and numbers. "

Why did he say "pictures and numbers" and then add "and numbers"?
"Pictures and videos" are together. "And numbers" separate.
There was a pause before he said "and numbers".
It was clearly notable in the interview.

What came to his mind first and foremost was that he had "private" pictures and videos that under no circumstances were to be seen by law enforcement officials. Private pictures and videos is of extreme sensitivity to him. "And numbers" was added later in the same sentence. There is a disconnect between "pictures and videos" and "and numbers". The sentence was already completed and and numbers was added in addition. It was unnecessary in that sentence. It shows that the numbers are far less sensitive than pictures and videos. It also shows he felt a need to add "and numbers" into the same sentence to take some of the attention away from the "private pictures and videos".

A new sentence adding numbers would have been natural and expected. He didn't start a new sentence. He didn't want to let "private pictures and videos" to stand on its own. While trying to overshadow some of the significance of pictures and videos with the addition of numbers, he told us just how sensitive private pictures and videos are to him.

Tania Cadogan said...

It is also worth noting that blacks are incredibly racist towards other blacks, the lighter the skin the better with those who are really dark skinned being scorned, mocked, treated as dumb and stupid, almost like during the slave days where the light skinned ones worked in the house whilst the dark skinned worked the fields. It is sen in Africa where billions i's spent on skin whitening creams. The lighter the skin the better the job. It is pretty much the world over in countries where skins are dark, lighter skin is seen as better, smarter.
I wonder if he thought the 2 men he hired were too stupid to understand they were being set up. He used them to make him look good.
They turned out to be smarter than he thought.

Martina said...

It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim, or aMexican, or someone Black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more…a lot more.

if I had said?

It feels like if they had been Muslim, or aMexican, or someone Black, I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more…a lot more.

Is how the sentence should have been, but he makes it about "what he said" and not about "what happened and who was there." So that alone gave him away.

Anonymous said...

Good point, Martina!

Martina said...

Anonymous Mike Dammann said...
"JS: Because I have private pictures and videos and numbers. "

"Because I have private pictures, videos and numbers. "

I felt it was either a deflecting strategy (I put into my truck my tools, and my water bottle, and my lunch, and my bookbag, so please don't even assume that I put the bodies of my wife and children in it too ...) or a sort of poetic flowerful language that needs to convey something, I don't know, just thinking out loud. Maybe it's the same thing. Trying to convey a special importance of these private things.

Mike Dammann said...

Thank you,Martina. I am not sure this has been covered before, so I am lacking the accurate term. For now I look at it like this:
"Because I have private pictures and videos." is a complete and finished sentence. If you watch the actual interview, you realize a time delay. What are time delays telling us? Are time delays important aspects often missed in written statement analyses? I strongly believe so. But other times, just like here, additional wording fills in the blanks and it is unnecessary information.

"and number" is unnecessary information within a sentence already finished. The question now is why the unnecessary information and why crammed within an already complete sentence rather than starting a new one. He didn't start a new one likely because he didn't prioritize on the phone numbers and likely they were not sensitive to him. They seemed like a good prop to add in order to lessen sensitivity now even more strongly indicated regarding pictures and videos. Not also that "private" comes before "pictures and videos". That is crucial. He doesn't want those to be viewed. Since the sentence was already completely after "videos", the "private" part does not include the numbers. So again: the time delay and the structure of his sentence shows that there are two sentences in one. And the sensitivity is all on the pictures and videos. Not on the numbers. And the fact that numbers are added later enhances the red flags already placed on "private pictures and videos".

Anonymous said...


Imo, his extreme disconnect from reality proves himself to be a danger to others.

He is also a danger to himself, in that he risks his own future and well-being for his alternate reality.

Imo, anyone in his world is at risk for grievous harm.

I hope his co-workers and friends can get that.

Anonymous said...

OT Two little girls missing in California

Mom's online post:

"My kids left my front yard. While I was cleaning up storm debris in the same yard. They asked to go for a walk. I asked them to wait. Turned my back for less the a minute to help their 2-year-old brother, and when I turned back they were gone. My closest neighbor is a mile away. And I searched. I called all my neighbors and they searched. We waited two hours to call in the sheriff's. My kids were not abducted or neglected. They wandered off in a heavily-timbered very steep area. With the help of a small group of locals and my husband we are still searching. My kids will be FOUND."

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office statement says the mom noticed they were missing 30 minutes later.

from HCSO “” last seen at about 2:30 p.m. yesterday when they asked their mom to go for a walk at their home in the 3300 block of Twin Trees Road south of Benbow. The girls’ mother, Misty Carrico, told them she wasn’t ready to go and turned her attention to other things. About 30 minutes later, she noticed them missing…”

Ano said...

Heavy victim blaming, dropping of pronoun, major TL, intoduction of abduction and neglect, relationship to father not good. It doesn't sound good...

Unknown said...

Ano said...


"we waited two hours to call in the sheriff's" WHY the need to state this? It makes it sound like they weren't searching.

"My kids were not abducted or neglected." WHY the conclusion? HOW does she know they weren't abducted?

Anonymous said...

Jussie said (in his first statement): "I am not and should not be looked upon as an isolated incident."

In a previous analysis Peter indicated that "incident" is not an appropriate word for a horrific attack. But something else about this sentence is strange. I would have expected him to say: "What happened to me is not and should not be looked upon as an isolated incident." By saying "I am not an isolated incident" he seems to say: I am the (non-isolated) incident. He identifies with the incident as it were.


Bobcat said...

Ano @ 10:04:


In between "left my front yard" and "to help their 2-year-old brother", there is a change of language ("my front yard" becomes "the same yard", "cleaning", and a dropped pronoun. Then the girls are "gone".

Mom also tells where they will be found.

Alex said...

J.S. Some are healing and some are hurtful, but I just want young people…

When he uses the words, "healing and hurtful" and "just want", is he telling us that he has made a choice between old and young and also why?


Anonymous said...

OT Girls found safe,good news

UPDATE, 11:41 a.m.: “I’m pleased to say that we’re witnessing a miracle today,” said Sheriff Honsal moments ago. The girls have been found safe and sound near Richardson Grove.

Bobcat said...

I'm so glad the girls are safe!

Is there a source link for Anon's "Mom's online post"?

Gem said...

Hi Peter

Please analyse the public statements and comments on tv shows that the Jackson family has made in response to the documentary Leaving Neverland. Presumably they knew about the abuse and I'd like to see you point out deception in their language.

Thank you!

Unknown said...

Bobcat said...
I'm so glad the girls are safe!

Is there a source link for Anon's "Mom's online post"?

the mother's sensitivity might come from what she was doing when the girls went missing. more of her speaking on the topic would be helpful.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is wonderful news.

Mom's online post was under her name on FB, a copy was posted in comments at link above.
The link no longer works.

Mystery Girl said...

Hi Peter! Long-time reader, but I don't think I've ever commented before here. GREAT analysis (as always)! While watching this interview I couldn't stop noticing how smug Smollett was, and how fixated he was on portraying himself as tough--it was also interesting how he grinned when he mentioned how he is now "one of them[victims]." He looked delighted, and his contempt for the viewer/listener came through so clearly in everything he said and every expression on his face. (What a shock, a celebrity who "comes hard...against 45" [I also noticed the weird gay subtext there] is contemptuous of everyday Americans, right?) I know body language isn't your thing, but I enjoy taking what I've read here and watching videos of these interviews etc. while looking at body language as well--though I don't believe body language is as "solid" as statement analysis.

Anyway. I have a suggestion. I would LOVE to see you analyze some statements/comments/interviews with Toni Ingram. Toni is a Colorado mother who claims her daughter Morgan--who tragically died in December 2011 by suicide--was stalked and murdered by a young man and his girlfriend who lived down the street. I don't want to give you too much background (unless you want it), but I wondered if I could perhaps transcribe some partial interviews with Toni/link you to them, or...? There are some aspects to the case that I think would make such an analysis truly fascinating and enlightening, and I would love to see your expertise applied to it!

Of course, if you're not interested, that is okay--you're very busy and it just might not appeal to you. But if you are, I'd be happy to provide you with whatever you might need (links, transcriptions, etc.). Thanks either way for such a great blog!

Mystery Girl said...

Oh, and Smollett is right--[his hoax] is not and should not be looked at as an isolated incident! I can't think of one of these really high-profile "hate crimes" that *hasn't* turned out to be a hoax, can you? And yet the media jumps in with both feet every single time, and every single time those of us who decide to wait until all the facts are in are derided as racist haters.

Lisa21222 said...

Mrs. Smith was apparently killed by her husband and his daughter, NOT by a "panhandler" as initially reported (by her husband and his daughter).

This undoubtedly impacted people who would otherwise have helped the homeless, particularly here in Baltimore. For three months, a vulnerable population has been vilified, because this guy apparently decided divorce would be inconvenient.

lynda said...

Anonymous Mystery Girl said...
Oh, and Smollett is right--[his hoax] is not and should not be looked at as an isolated incident! I can't think of one of these really high-profile "hate crimes" that *hasn't* turned out to be a hoax, can you? And yet the media jumps in with both feet every single time, and every single time those of us who decide to wait until all the facts are in are derided as racist haters.

You can't think of one that is not a hoax?? The largest percentages are NOT hoaxes.

Matthew Shepard ring a bell?

James Byrd Jr.? was beaten, stripped naked, tied to the back of a truck by three men from the Ku Klux Klan and dragged down a dirt road until he was dead and decapitated for being black.

Pittsburgh Synagogue?

Dylan Roof? White supremacist who slaughter 9 blacks in church?

James Craig Anderson? 3 white supremacists shouting white power chase him down and run him over, killing him for being black

The list goes on and on. Hate crimes have risen almost 13% in 2017.

A very small amount are hoaxes, yet those get the MOST media coverage. Allowing people to think that hate crimes are all lies. They're not. Don't minimize what is happening thruout the world because of this one jerk.

Anonymous said...

Leaving neverland

I thought they sounded very believable.

I noticed that when they talked about The Abuse they Changed into "He would masturbate" rather than he masturbated.

Any thoughts on that ?

Unknown said...

Peter, I rarely comment on any posts. However, I wanted to send you my appreciation for your work that you share with us. Your blog has become one of my favorite past-time hobbies. Thank you for all that you do!

Mystery Girl said...

Hey Lynda,

"A very small amount are hoaxes, yet those get the MOST media coverage."

Yeah, that's...what I said: "HIGH-PROFILE hate crimes."

And Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd were twenty+ years ago. James Craig Anderson almost eight years ago. When you have to go back twenty years to point to a high-profile hate crime that's not a hoax, you're making my point for me. And honestly, none of those--including the horrific mass shootings you mentioned--are the type of thing I'm talking about here anyway. I'm not talking about actual murders; I actually thought that was clear, since I was commenting in reference to Smollett's "hate crime."

I'm talking about LGBT activists burning down their own homes, sending themselves hate letters, painting filthy slurs on their own doors/cars/homes. I'm talking about African-Americans painting slurs on their own churches (or burning them down) and homes. I'm talking about Muslims burning their own mosques and flat-out making up stories about having their hijab torn off in public. I'm talking about the seeming spree of nasties writing slurs on receipts in lieu of tips that we had for a while. Heck, I'm talking about the outrageous wrong done to a group of Catholic high school boys last month, based on an outright lie. These are the crimes and events the media LOVES to publicize, over and over, these "A white man in a MAGA hat did something awful!" stories. Can you think of one that got heavy media coverage that was true? Because I can't. Perhaps it's true that only a small percentage of hate crimes are hoaxes; I can believe that with no problem.But it is also true that most of the hate crimes that actually get media attention *are* hoaxes, which frankly makes me wonder just what the crimes are that are being ignored. Are they not "hate-y" enough, or something? Or are the villains simply not white/Christian/Trump voters, so their victims don't matter (much like how Black Lives Matter until it's an illegal immigrant or another black person doing the killing, in which case they do not matter at all)?

No one is denying hate crimes happen, for Pete's sake. I certainly never did. What I deny is that there is an epidemic of Trump voters running around with ropes and bleach, or yanking scarves off Muslim women in public, or sending gay men and lesbians hate mail. The majority of hate crimes these days are anti-Semitic (and where did you get the "up 17%" stats? I'm not denying it,I'm just curious to see it), and even the most highly publicized of those--a string of synagogue fires--were set by a Jewish man (he was, if memory serves, a mentally ill black man who was also Jewish, but I could be misremembering that last bit).

"Allowing people to think that hate crimes are all lies. They're not. Don't minimize what is happening thruout the world because of this one jerk."

I do not "allow" anyone to think anything. People are free to think what they like. What I personally think is that active bigotry against minorities has become such an almost-nonexistent problem in the US that activists actually have to make up stories like this to hide that fact. That also does not mean that all hate crimes are lies; I know they are not. (I've seen hate crimes the media refuses to cover, as well, because they did not fit the media's preferred narrative.) I agree with you that hoaxes like these harm those real victims of hate; these hoaxers, and the media activists who carry water for them, disgust me, which is why I said what I said. If we're going to not "minimize what's happening thruout[sic] the world," then let's also not pretend the US is awash with violent Trump-voting white people just waiting around every corner to threaten and attack gay people/black people/Muslims.

Have a great day.

Hey Jude said...


A nine minute excerpt of a police interview with Cardinal Pell, following allegations of historic sexual abuse. There are many points at which, if he were innocent, a reliable denial could have been made, and would be expected - he gives no denial, rather places himself elsewhere in the building

He makes an embedded confession:

"This is in the sacristy at the cathedral, after Sunday Mass. Need I say anymore"...

(Not really, no.)

The video was released by the court following Pell's recent conviction.

Not for the faint hearted:

One of the boys committed suicide as a young man.

Anonymous said...


R Kelly interview

John Mc Gowan said...


R. Kelly Said “I’m Fighting For My Fucking Life” In His First TV Interview Since Being Charged With Sexual Abuse


R. Kelly said “I’m fighting for my fucking life” after being charged with 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Illinois.

Kelly made the comments to CBS This Morning’s Gayle King in his first television interview since he was arrested in Chicago in February.

“Stop it, y’all quit playin’. Quit playin’. I didn’t do this stuff. This is not me,” he said, directly addressing the camera. “I’m fighting for my fucking life.”

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx said Kelly is accused of forcing oral penetration with two underage victims, one from 1998 until 2001, and another from 2009 to 2010. He is also charged with forced sexual penetration with another underage victim from 1998 until 1999, and with threatening and forcing himself on another victim by ejaculating on her in 2003.

But Kelly dismissed the charges in his interview with King, which is slated to air in full Wednesday morning.

“Not true, whether they’re old rumors, new rumors, future rumors, not true,” he said

Kelly, who has also been accused of pursuing sexual relationships with underage girls in the past and acquitted on child pornography charges in 2008, told King his current trial was an unfair case of “double jeopardy.”

“People are going back to the past and they’re adding all of this stuff now, to that — to make all of this stuff that’s going on now feels real to people,” he said. “I beat my case. When you beat something, you beat it. You can’t double jeopardy me like that. It’s not fair, it’s not fair to nobody.”

BuzzFeed News was the first to reveal in 2017 that police had been told by parents that Kelly was holding their adult daughters in his Georgia home and Chicago recording studio while controlling every aspect of their lives.

When King asked about those accusations, Kelly became emotional in his defense.

“I don’t need to,” he said. “Why would I? How stupid would it be for R. Kelly, with all I’ve been through in my way, way past to hold somebody, let alone four, five, six, 50, you say, how stupid would I be to do that?”

In a second clip released Tuesday night, King asked Kelly what he thought about artists including John Legend and Lady Gaga condemning him over the allegations. Kelly responded that Gaga was being unprofessional and disparaged her.

"It's unfortunate that her intelligence goes to such a short level when it comes to that," he said.

Kelly also argued that the allegations against him could be made against anyone famous, but King pointed out that many have had long careers without any sexual assault accusations.

"This is Earth," Kelly said. "And this can happen to anybody."

But the number of people who have come forward with allegations against Kelly cannot be ignored, the parents of one alleged victim said in a statement Tuesday night. Alice and Angelo Clary have said their daughter Azriel has been mentally abused by Kelly for years.

"R. Kelly is a liar, manipulator and sociopath who must be brought to justice for his decades of sexual assaults on underage girls," the Clarys said in a statement through their attorney, Michael Avenatti. "All of these victims and their parents cannot be lying."

John Mc Gowan said...

Another snippet

His attorney, Steve Greenberg, has said his client is innocent.

"I think all the women are lying," Greenberg said after Kelly turned himself in to police.

Even his attorney has doubts he is innocent

The full transcript will be very interesting to read when available

Unknown said...

lynda said...

Mystery Girl said

What I personally think is that active bigotry against minorities has become such an almost-nonexistent problem in the US that activists actually have to make up stories like this to hide that fact


If you really believe that active bigotry against minorities is almost nonexistent in the US,then there's really nothing left to say to you. You wouldn't believe the facts because the facts don't support your views.

BTW, hate crime rising overall 17% in 2017. with a 23% rise for religion-based hate, and 37% in Anti-Jewish, and in racial hate crimes, they are committed almost overwhelmingly by whites, was reported both by the Department of Justice, and the FBI. Oh wait, let me guess...both the DOJ and FBI are lying.


Tania Cadogan said...

All that talk, all the opportunities to say he did not sexually abuse/rape those underage girls and he does not at any point say "I did not sexually abuse/rape those underage girls or any underage girl.
The same with the women he is supposed to be holding and controlling, again no words saying he did not hold and control those women or any women or that he is not holding said women.

For some, no matter how rich and famous they are, no matter how many women or men throw themselves at them it isn't enough.
It has to be forced, it is all about power and control over an unwilling victim.
The victim may originally have been a willing partner yet the subject forces the victim to go beyond their personal limits until they become dominated and submissive, even to the point where they defend their abuser.
Think domestic violence cases where the woman keeps returning to her abuser blaming herself because she had/hadn't said or done something to upset him and striving to be the perfect woman to her abuser not knowing or realizing that no matter what they did it would never be enough or right.
It is all about power and control, domination till the woman breaks, either by leaving, being murdered by her abuser or snapping and turning on him often to the point of her killing him.
having what is basically a harem would suit his ego perfectly, that some were underage would be seen as a badge of honor a trophy especially given he walked once on child sex charges.
He is rich, he is famous, he is untouchable and now he is an unhappy bunny claiming double jeopardy.
It depends on what they charge him with this time and if new charges could be laid concerning previous victims in his previous trial.
His arrogance may be his downfall.
He may decide to speak out despite his lawyers advice, perhaps to taint the jury pool or stir up public feelings in his favor.
He knows he is facing serious charges which if proven could put him behind bars for life.
His arrogance and ego will be his downfall, he will talk and we will listen intently

Anonymous said...

Please do something On Leaving neverland !!!! There would be so much to learn!

Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you for the kind words. Peter

Anonymous said...

A rise in hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2017 doesn’t necessarily mean an actual rise in hate crimes in 2017. According to FBI hate crime statistics, law enforcement reported 1054 more hate crimes in 2017 (compared to 2016); the majority for intimidation and simple assault (see here and here). However, in 2017 the number of participating/reporting agencies also increased by approximately 1000 (these agencies did not contribute information prior to 2017) and the population number covered by the FBI hate crime statistics increased by 16,621,673 in 2017 (see here, here and here).

Also: the FBI hate crime statistics provide information on hate crimes as reported by law enforcement. It is unclear to me what percentage of these reported incidents was actually ruled a hate crime in a court of law.

Furthermore, according to the FBI statistics there were 6370 “known offenders” of hate crimes in 2017. Of them 3227 were White, 1359 were Black or African American, 569 belonged to another race and 1215 were of unknown race (see here). According to information of the US Census Bureau, 76.6% of the US population is White, 13.4% is Black or African American and 10% belongs to another race (estimates of July 1, 2018). Looking at these numbers combined, it seems (percentagewise) Whites are vastly underrepresented and Blacks and African Americans are vastly overrepresented as offenders of hate crimes.

Every hate crime is one too many. And I prefer looking at persons as individuals instead of as members of a certain race or other group. However, if you want to argue that there is an actual rise in hate crimes and if you want to attribute these crimes/this rise (primarily) to a certain race, it should be based on the facts.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

be skeptical of the definition of "hate" crime. Lots of politics behind it.

Trigger said...

Peter Hyatt said...
be skeptical of at the definition of "hate" crime. Lots of politics behind it.

So true!

Anonymous said...

Yes, and the MSM are eager to misconstrue these statistics to promote the idea that hate crimes committed by right-wing extremists are surging (all supposedly inspired by Trump, of course).


Trigger said...

Smollett has been exposed as someone who duped a lot of sincere people, wasted law enforcement resources, and mocked real victims of crimes. (not a new behavior as Mystery Girl has described).

It is true that Smollett got a lot of "star status" media exposure for his hoax.

Smollett's statement to RR was, "lead with love." I have to ask, what has love got to do with his scripted lies used to demonize "white male" Trump supporters in the manner he did?

What smug and self-righteous voices in his head would prompt him to target and accuse innocent people of a savage act?

Anonymous said...

"lead with love"-> apparently Jussie thinks he is a leader. Why? Based on what? A leader of whom? Because he is rich? Because he is famous (in certain circles)? It seems quite pretentious to me. What makes him better than others? Indeed, as the analysis points out, he has a need to portray himself as "superior" to others (whereas most people wouldn't pull the stunts he has). A lot of Hollywood (and other) actors seem to have that need. For instance George Clooney meeting Angela Merkel of Germany and publicly backing her controversial refugee politics. I thought that was extremely pretentious. Apparently he thought his opinion was so important that he should travel to Germany and share it with Germany’s Chancellor. I think every German's (and every European's) opinion matters - or should matter - more than Clooney's on that topic.


Tania Cadogan said...

Peter Hyatt said...

be skeptical of the definition of "hate" crime. Lots of politics behind it.

Hate crimes work both ways. actual hate is the same as creating a fake hate.

Both are haters

Mystery Girl said...

FFS, Lynda. You don't know me. You know nothing about me. Yet, despite my saying that I in no way deny the reality that hate crimes happen, you have decided I think the FBI and DOJ are liars.

Since you did not give me the specific source I asked for, I Googled "DOJ hate crime statistics," and had a look at the "FBI Releases 2017 Hate Crime Statistics" page, which was the first link.

This page appears to report a total of "7,175 hate crime incidents involving 8,437 offenses."

8,437 offenses. *8,437.* (Only 7,175 incidents, but I'll go with the "offenses" number so it doesn't look like I'm trying to hide something.)

in a nation of 326 MILLION people.

And that is UP 17% from the year before!! It actually rose to that unbelievably miniscule number. Jeez, Lynda, I actually thought the number was higher than that! I had no idea it was less than 10,000. We could sit every hate crime victim in the US in Shea Stadium, and they would fill less than a quarter of the seats.

But you still insist that to call that number "almost nonexistent" is foolish and wrong.

If you don't think less than 10,000 in a nation of 325,700,000 people is "almost nonexistent," then I honestly do not know what to tell YOU.

Oh, and "are committed overwhelmingly by whites?" According to the data you claim to cite, 50.7% of offenders were white. Is "half" overwhelming now? Or is know, half? I always thought to be considered "overwhelming," it needed to be at least 70%, but oh well. We can differ there.

I do believe active bigotry is almost nonexistent, frankly. Racism is pretty much universally recognized as the repugnant evil that it is. Saying something others consider even mildly racist can destroy one's career, as several unfortunate people making bad jokes have learned. No one I know tolerates racism, and of course I do not know everyone but many of the people I know are conservatives, Trump voters, libertarians, or other people the left like to paint as racist without knowing them or anything about the,. Of course racism exists; I could repeat again that I've never denied that but you're not listening. Racism exists. Racism is bad. But I do not believe that the majority or even half of all Americans are actively, openly racist, or even quietly racist, and I am very tired of being smeared and seeing my friends and family smeared in that way by people who refuse to accept that we do not feel the way they want us to. Again, if it was such a big problem, people would not need to fake hate crimes. All Jussie Smollett would have needed to do was walk up and down the street for a few hours if it was as bad as you seem to think it is. Yet the numbers do not lie--they're your numbers, remember--and they say that the odds of being the victim of a hate crime are miniscule. That doesn't make hate crimes any less hideous, or any less worthy of condemnation in the strongest possible terms. Every hate crime is an evil, a life destroyed, a hideous and vile event that lessens us all. They should NEVER happen. Even one is one too many. But they are not as common as some would like us to believe, and saying that takes nothing away from the victims of those that do occur.

Mystery Girl said...

And no, the election of Trump does not mean millions are happily racist. Trump is not racist. Being against illegal immigration (not immigration in general; illegal immigration) does not make a person racist, despite what the left wants everyone to believe. The idea that millions of people who voted for Obama twice suddenly became racist when it was time to vote again is absurd. People have legitimate concerns about illegal immigrants, and those concerns have nothing to do with skin color despite the left's desperate need to insist it is because if they can claim it's racism they don't have to engage with the arguments and actually listen to those with whom they disagree.

Hey, wait...that's what you did with me, and my comment! You totally ignored everything I had to say to focus on one sentence and then decided I'm a racist conspiracy theorist who thinks the FBI are a bunch of liars--even though I said nothing of the kind and gave no indication at all that I might think that--which spared you the need to engage with or intelligently respond to anything I said because according to you I won't listen anyway! And then you claimed that *I'M* the one who refuses to listen to anything that doesn't "support [my] narrative," when in actuality it is YOU who is refusing to listen to the facts! What'd'ya know!

The US is one of the least racist nations in the world, according to a Swedish study done in 2013.

A few years ago, rapper Li'l Wayne said in an interview that he did not feel his skin color had ever held him back, that he had not ever experienced racism. I thought that was fantastic news. Many on the right thought that was fantastic news. You know who *didn't?* The people on the left. You know, the ones who claim to hate racism and want to see it stopped? You'd think they would be thrilled to hear that even one successful black man had become successful without his skin color ever being a problem. Shouldn't that be something to celebrate? Look at the progress we've made, that a black man--even if it's only one--has never experienced the ugliness that is racism? But the left were furious. How dare he say that? They were extremely upset that this man had not been discriminated against.

Why do you think that is, Lynda? Do you celebrate the idea that racism is dying, or are you furious at the mere suggestion, because what in the world will you have to feel superior about if *none* of the people you disdain and to whom you condescend and sneer are actually the racist oafs and morons you want us to be?

If you want to answer any of these questions honestly, I would welcome those replies. If all you want to do is insult and ignore and misrepresent me and everything I've said, don't bother. If you can't engage like an adult, I'm not interested in conversing with you.

Do have a good day, though. I wish you no ill will.

Anonymous said...

On Thursday, members of the House of Representatives Omar, Tlaib, and Carson stated:
"It’s the first time we have voted on a resolution condemning Anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation’s history. Anti-Muslim crimes have increased 99% from 2014-2016 and are still on the rise.”

Based on the FBI hate crime statistics, this statement seems at least partly incorrect. Anti-Muslim hate crimes were not “still on the rise” in 2017 (2018 numbers haven’t been published yet). In fact the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes has decreased considerably in 2017 even though approximately 1000 additional agencies started providing numbers and the population number covered by the statistics increased by 16,621,673 in that year.

The FBI statistics provide the following Anti-Islamic (Muslim) hate crime incident numbers:
2014: 154 (0 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters)
2015: 257 (4 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters)
2016: 307 (0 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters)
2017: 273 (0 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters)

Meanwhile, a 2017 report by The Nation Institute and Center for Investigative Reporting looked at the terrorist attacks in the US between 2008 and 2016. It found 115 right-wing inspired terror attacks causing 79 deaths and 63 Islamist inspired terror attacks causing 90 deaths. So between 2008 and 2016 Islamist-terrorists managed to kill 14% more people than right-wing terrorists even though only about 1.1% of the US population is Muslim. How many Christian inspired attacks occurred in that period? How many Buddhism inspired attacks? Etcetera, etcetera. Why don’t we hear Omar, Tlaib and Carson speak out about that? And how many children were circumcised by Muslims based on Islam? Doesn’t the FBI keep track of that? Why not? Doesn’t that qualify as rape or sexual assault and/or (aggravated) assault?


Mystery Girl said...

Oh, and something about Smollett that struck me, and speak to the arrogance and self-importance you pointed to, Peter:

Notice that he mentions texting his manager, who he thinks is in Australia, and then makes a point of saying his manager called him back *immediately.* "I said 'yo, call me when you can.' He called me immediately." Now, this is related to time, yes, but it's also a symbol of importance. Jussie is sooo important, such a big star, that his manager calls him back *immediately* even at two in the morning! Jussie's manager is literally at his beck and call, because his star is burning so bright. Anyone who has worked in entertainment (I am a professional novelist, can you tell, heh) knows the significance of having your agent/editor/manager/director/producer not only take your call or call you, but how fast they call you back. Jussie is telling us that he is at the top rung--he wants us to know that.

Again, it could be merely confirming his alibi, but IMO it's significant that he made that part of his story, given how much self-aggrandizing he does throughout.

BTW, thanks for the fascinating info/analyses, Autumn!

Andy said...

Peter have you listened to the FBI interview with Chris Watts in prison that came out yesterday? His language indicates he had an accomplice, most likely his mistress, Nicole.

Andy said...

Watts admits freely to killing his wife and kids, yet his admissions are not truthful, and he is clearly covering up for someone else. I do believe he killed his family yet his language indicates he is covering up for someone who helped him.

A lot of temperal laguna that the FBI cannot get him to give straight answers about small details surrounding the sequence of events and the specifics of exactly when and where his wife and kids were killed even though there is only about a 3 hour window of time and there is not other reason for him to be lying since he has already admitted to killing all 3. My sense is that it is because someone else was there helping him. The FBI notices this but cannot get him to explain the temporal laguna. He keeps wiggling around it.

Anyway, it is an interesting language study for SA.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Jussie just got indicted on 16 Felony Accounts. Good, they need to throw the book at him - he could have caused race riots, ripping Chicago apart even more not to mention the damage he's done to real victims

Anonymous said...

Judge Ruth Ginsburg?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I was a little boy who idolized Tom Seaver. In 1972, the Giants traded 42 year old Willie Mays to the Mets. Growing up, his name was a legend to us kids. When he came to NY, Mother's Day, he hit a home run and it was magical for us. The magic lasted another year (73) for us.

I never knew I, nor the kids with me, were supposed to be racist. Heck, we didn't recognize Willie as black. He was a MET!

I meet a lot of people in trainings. We are a marvelously and rare nation of racial harmony.

You'd never know it from listening to politicians or main stream media.


Trigger said...

Thank you, Peter

I never knew Willie Mays was "black" either. I loved baseball too as a kid. Willie Mays was a popular player. All baseball players looked the same to me. They were all athletes who could do amazing things on a baseball field that made me cheer and want to come back and see more action.

"We are a marvelously and rare nation of racial harmony" True...true...true! I see this everywhere I go in the US.

Trigger said...

Did anyone see the Gail King interview with R. Kelly?

When he said, "Watch it Gail" more than one time, after a question he did not like, I saw a man who likes to control and demean women. Gail King did not appear to believe his denials and he knew it.

He got angry at her, then switched into victim mode coupled with hysteria. She caught it and asked him if he was going to play victim.

It was tense.

Andy said...

Has anyone listened to the latest Chris Watts interview?

His demeanor is so laid back, it is almost hard to believe he did what he is admitting to having done.

People have diagnosed him as being an inverted narcissist. Perhaps.

I am really scratching my head, because as he is answering their questions, I can "see" in my mind what actually happened (using SA and other things). I can see in my mind that Chris's mistress, Nicole was actually there when Shannan came home at around 2 pm from her trip. I believe Shannan was beside herself when she saw the 2 of them in bed together and Chris and Nicole killed Shannan and the kids. That Chris and Nicole did it. I can see in my mind Nicole throwing Shannan's self help book away and Nicole pulling the wedding ring off of Shannan's finger...Chris is saying he did it, but I can "see" Shannan doing it.

I hope the FBI picked up on these things.

Anonymous said...

K Harris aint been in news lately. What happened?

Anonymous said...

Lying low because of Smollett case?


Hey Jude said...

OT - I have listened to the interview with Chris Watts. I wonder was he intending the children should die, or were they killed because Bella witnessed at least some of what happened to Shannan? It's more of a horror story than even it was already.

A theme he likes to return to is how helpful a person he has always been, is known to be, and still hopes to be in his prison life.


Why has the interview been made public while he may yet have more to say?

Anonymous said...

Smollett is just another completely delusional, lying, bitter, African American.
Sadly our country is infested with these types.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, is your comment intended to provoke? Surely your country has delusional, lying, bitter people from all kinds of races.

Andy, I haven't listened to the Chris Watts interview. I can't bring myself to look into that case but I know what you mean by "seeing" things in your mind. It's the reason I started looking into SA. For instance, I once listened to an interview with Amanda Knox. I didn't know much about the case and Knox said all the "right" (disculpatory) things. Yet throughout the interview I saw glimpses of her frantically running from room to room to clean up the crime scene.


Andy said...

Hey Jude,

I don't know, and the FBI does not pointedly ask him about whether or not he intended for his kids to die, which I thought was odd.

In my opinion, it had to be premeditated. Chris is unclear in his language about where and how the girls were actually killed, at times using past tense language implying they were already dead when they went into his truck, but he settles on the story that they were alive, resting their feet on their mother's dead body as he drove to the dump site. (One odd thing is why he left the sheet Shann'ann was wrapped in fluttering in the wind) instead of burying it with her. He does not give any coherent answer regarding that to the FBI.

Chris's language surrounding what he actually did when he disposed of his girls in the oil tanks is alarming imo. He tells the FBI he didn't have to "hit" them to get them into the oil tanks (when asked how he was able to fit them into such a small opening). (I also think it is so strange that he put them in 2 separate tanks and he refuses to explain that--it makes me wonder if perhaps there was another person there helping him.) He also says at one point that he "walked" one of the girls up the ladder to the oil tanks. (He claims that he brought them up there separately and that one of them--Bella--was sitting in the truck still alive while he was disposing of Celeste(!!!!!!!) (He claims they were both dead when he put them in the tanks, but why did he say that he "walked" one of them up there? I would like to know what SA thinks of that--him using the word "walked" in that context.

Also, the autopsy on one of the girls shows injury consistent with being smothered, the other doesn't. Also, one was found to have oil in her stomach, the other doesn't. That is by far the most disturbing detail I picked up from the interview is some linguistic indicators that suggest that one of the girls (Bella) may have still been alive when he put her in the tank. It is beyond horrifying.

HIs nice guy, helpful personality makes it so hard to understand how he could turn into such a monster. But clearly he did, and I cannot fathom how he could be so cruel to his children.

Anonymous said...

Is smolett and harris related as some say? How to find out?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and something really weird about justice ruth being back at work but no pictures of her. Didnt see her return on news if she is back. They would be haopy and show it and not only say shes back.

Andy said...

Also, really weird how Chris Watts describes Shann'ann as being "facedown" on the bed (even though Chris says when prodded that she usually didn't sleep facedown) when he "nudged" her awake so they could "talk" about how they are "incompatible". There is then temporal lacunae where he suddenly is "on top of her" straddling her and crushing her pregnant stomach so he could "talk" to her. Chris says he remained in that position for 15 minutes while they chitchatted and claims that Shann'ann did not one time say "get off of me". He then begins strangling her in that position where she is facing him. However, I noted that he said that after he strangles her the next time he looks at her she is "facedown" on the bed.
Using SA, my instincts say that she was already dead when he claims to have nudged her to "talk" when she was "facedown" on the bed. I noted that Chris WAtts also buried Shann'ann facedown with her legs tucked underneath her, which is unusual and he did not bury the sheet with her rather left it above ground which makes no sense and he refuses to explain that to the FBI. They ask him "Did you want to get caught?" And he says no but will not explain why he did that with the sheet.

I can't believe they didn't give him the death penalty.

LC said...

The Chris Watts interview was released in 2 parts. The first part was nearly 4 hours long.
I have only managed to listen to the first 1.5 hours. Will defer judgment until it is heard in its entirety. I will say it is interesting to listen to all 3 interviewer's questions & strategy of making Chris comfortably talking. We are reminded that they are familiar to Chris from previous interviews. It was important for Chris to say he had intercourse with Shannan after she arrived home & he felt like it was 'test' sex. I do not know if semen was present when Shannan's body was autopsied.
As for the Death Penalty - Colorado's new governor is currently preparing to repeal the sentence altogether. The previous 2-term governor placed a moratorium on carrying out any sentences of Death. The attorneys for Watts must not have considered that DP was not really a threat, and used it as leverage for a plea anyway. The Guilty plea did save Shannan's family from a lengthy trial, though.

Andy said...


Yes I thought they did a skillful job getting Chris to open up.

The coroner said that Shann'ann had not had sex previous to being killed by Chris.

I personally think that Chris DID have sex that night....with his manly mistress, Nicole, and I think it was in Chris's bed and that she was there when Shann'ann came home in order to antagonize her. I believe it was then that the argument began and that Chris and Nicole both killed her. There is reason to think she was in the house including video showing what appears to be a female leaving the house while Chris was loading Shann'ann into the truck.

Noone deserves the death penalty more than Chris and I doubt he will survive in prison. They had to move him to an out of state prison because the prisoners were trying to kill him and there was a hit on him.


LC said...

Andy, this was a local crime, so I did read all of the official investigative reports that were released by the Frederick PD. The only video of that day was from the surveillance camera of the neighbor. It did not show anyone else leaving the house when Chris backed up his truck to the garage to load it.
Before his confession, I suspected he killed his daughters before Shannan arrived home. Two live & upset little girls who were not strapped in car seats were not noticed in the truck as he drove away.
He was held in secluded security while at the Colorado prison, never removed to general population. But he was transferred to Wisconsin for security reasons. Authorities had no evidence or cause to charge Nicole with a crime.

Hey Jude said...

OT-Chris Watts, in the new interview, said Nichol Kissinger had been to his house once - he discontinued that to talk about him spending time at her residence instead - it was an abrupt switch as though he were self-censoring. Nichol, in one interview says that she went to his house twice, but she didn't want to be there because "it was someone else's life, someone else's existence."

Once or twice? Why did he say she had been there only once and change/confuse his answer to the question?

There's so much of it. What about the 'we" which occurs in relation to the tools used to dig the grave for Shannan - was there more than one person, -did he catch and fix a wrong pronoun- or was he referring to himself and his workmates generally having such tools in their trucks?

He says a couple of times that it was as though he was being controlled by somebody else - as if someone was behind him.

Mystery Girl said...

Anonymous 12:42, every country has its fair share of lying delusional people, of all races. I have to admit, I suspect you're pulling a Smollett, and are here in a sad attempt to "prove" that racism is real. Your timing and phrasing are simply too suspect.

The US is indeed a marvelous and rare nation of racial harmony. Every weekday here in Texas, I drop my children off and go to the grocery store, the hardware store, the bookstore, the dry cleaner, the gas station--whatever is on my agenda that particular day. And at every single one of those places, I end up interacting with black people, Latin/Hispanic people, white people...all of us smiling, greeting each other, holding doors open, giving each other a cart so they don't have to make the trip or offering to return theirs for them since we're going to walk right past the return spot, offering the penny someone is short, making small talk about the weather or the Cowboys or how we can't believe holiday decorations are up already. The America I live in is one where people go out of their way for each other and treat each other kindly and with respect, and are treated that way in turn, no matter what color our skin happens to be.

And that's not just Texas. Everywhere in the US I've lived has been like that. I understand people have different experiences, but I have never even caught a glimpse in real life of the hideous pool of twisted racism and hatred that the media--who never interact with the public at all--keep insisting describes every part of the US outside their own vaunted little worlds. I can count on both hands (I barely need both) the number of times in my life I have witnessed overt racism in the US, and I am forty-five years old. And every time I saw that, people--myself and/or others--spoke against it.

That's the America most of us live in. Because that's the one that actually exists.

Anonymous said...


'BURN THIS LETTER' Steven Avery’s creepy prison letters he told ex to destroy reveal the 18 controlling ‘rules’ he demanded she followed
The Making A Murderer star also threatened to falsely "tell the world" his ex fiancé Lynn Hartman and her daughter were on drugs in the letters, obtained by Sun Online.

MAKING A Murderer Steven Avery’s "love letters" to his former fiancée are revealed for the first time - exposing his creepy list of demands and sinister threats.

In one letter to his ex, Lynn Hartman, obtained by Sun Online, the convicted murderer writes out an 18-point list of what she can and cannot do if she is to be his wife.

Lynn, 53, a legal secretary from Nevada, started dating Avery, 56, in September 2016 after sending him a letter of support, which turned into a penpal romance, before she began regularly visiting him at Waupun Correctional Facility, Wisconsin.

They quickly got engaged and, in one rambling letter - strewn with grammar and spelling mistakes - Avery told Hartman how lucky she was to have him as a potential husband.

Avery, who is serving a life sentence without parole for murdering Teresa Halbach, told Lynn she must destroy or burn the letters.

In one he wrote: "Hello honey. Well I do miss you a lot and love you as a wife. I wish you can see that I am the best guy in your life.

"I do take all your punishment that you give me because I can handle it from my wife.

Steven tells Lynn how much he loves her in this letter but he soon turns sinister
"When I get out I will give you a good life and I will! And I see you don’t know what to do because you never met a guy like me.

"You can’t handle a good guy like me with all this love for you, and I can hear it in your voice, you can’t believe I am still here with you."

But he soon turns controlling and lists 18 rules Lynn must follow in order to be a "good wife" - including never showing anyone his letters and always answering the phone to him.

He orders her: "When I call you will pick up the phone, you are only a housewife."

Avery would blow hot and cold in his error-strewn letters, once revealing to Lynn: "Well I ben up all night, I can’t sleep at all, I was think about you all night and it really hurts me and I got up and made me a cup of coffee and it was strong. I made it at 5.00am… I am looking at your picture and you look so beautiful and loving and I know you love me and do!"

Yet in another correspondence, he warns his future wife that if she ever publicly revealed the letters, he would wrongly claim to everyone that she and daughter Kamilia were on drugs.

Anonymous said...

He writes: "If you tell any one of this letter or any other letters I will go and tell the world you and the kid is on drugs then the ho world world will know that too! So all you have to do is love me and treat me as your husband, and are (sic) life will be fine forever!!!!! I don’t want to hurt you or your kids. So you have to promise… you will help us forever.

"I am hurt that you are doing this to me, not mad, hurt, more hurt you don’t understand what this is doing to me when I love you as the ho world! That’s way (sic) I get mad!"

Avery won the right to appeal his sentence last week - following his high profile involvement in true crime documentary Making A Murderer which showed alleged ineptitude in the original murder investigation and prosecution.

Lynn claims she has been hounded by Making A Murderer fans after they split over her appearance on the US talk show, Dr Phil, discussing their romance.

Steven Avery's 18 rules for ex fiancee

1. You will not use any letters of mine or pictures of mine without my permition from me!
2. And you will not hang up on me no more!
3. You will tell me you loved as your husband and you are going to trust be as your husband, I want to see how you treat me as your husband
4. No way out we are in this and I love you as the world!
5. When I call you, will pick up the phone, you are only a housewife.

6. I do not want to do this to us but I will stop all of this if you treat me as your husband and not a piece of trash
7. I love you as my wife! I am not a piece of trash! You got me doing this I would never do something like this in my life but I have to do this so we can be husband and wife when I get out!!
8. I will call you between the 10-21-2016 too 10-24-2016 I need time so I can feel better, stop being mad at you so I don’t go to the web and talk about you

9. You treat me good and nice
10. I know you don’t want me to go to the web, one kid mite lose her kid so do you want that I know you don’t and I think she will hate you if I want to the web and tell the world this
11. And one more thing I want you to send me a picture of the wedding dress and I want a picture of the white shirt too only for me!! And I want it soon okay honey!!

Anonymous said...

12. I am so mad at you and can’t think you got me so mad! I have not got so mad at you that I want to go to the world web. I need some time so I don’t get mad then I will call you
13. I will treat you nice to as husband and wife okay!
14. All I want is you and me to be happy when I get out!!!!
15. You can throw out this letter our burn it destroyed by fire this letter
16. All you to do is make me happy and I will make you happy
17. I will not do nothing to I talk to you on the days I said okay or I will not go to the web
18. Don’t ever tell me to never stop calling again

In this letter Avery tells Lynn to stop "treating him like a piece of trash"
His attorney Kathleen Zellner said that Avery had dumped her, when in fact it was the other way round, as Lynn couldn’t take the cyber abuse any longer.

On a postcard - that was returned to her - Lynn wrote: "I cannot continue to be involved with you because there is so much negative for me. They have ruined my life… I can’t do this anymore. I feel like you don’t even want me to leave the house. I am chased, I am harassed, my family is harassed."

In response, Avery said says he is going to write to other women and find himself a new girlfriend.

He said: "So I guess you don’t want me looking at your pictures no more so you don’t want me to think a lot you night! So you took everything way from me, the phone, the pictures, my love for you, so I don’t know what you want me to do. so I am writing to all these other woman and can get a nice one how (sic) love me for me and not money, so I feel good in a good woman for me and love me!"

Now Lynn has joined a Facebook group called "Steven Avery Is Guilty" and says he should be locked up for good, adding: "I believed he was innocent, and I believed in the cause to help free him. I think the rest just snowballed because he called so often and wrote so often, I barely had time to think of anything else.

"He is a lot more clever than people think. He has hundreds of thousands watching his case and two producers as well as an all mighty attorney working for him too. I’m just glad I was strong enough to admit I was wrong and break it off.

"As soon as I stopped answering his calls, the threats started and the true Steven Avery presented himself to me. I know he is guilty as charged and right where he belongs.

"He is not a good man and he is not innocent. He is a violent criminal who is right where he belongs."

In response, Steven Avery's attorney said: "There is no credible evidence these letters were written by Steven Avery.

Anonymous said...

a groovy secret
"Forged letters have been attributed to Mr. Avery in the past.

"Ms. Hartman needs to move on with her life —develop some hobbies or do something helpful for someone else.

"She has wasted too much time obsessing over a man with a life sentence. Mr. Avery has moved on and wishes her well."

Anonymous said...

Well said: "the media--who never interact with the public at all--keep insisting describes every part of the US".

Trigger said...

Mystery Girl has described the same America that I live in.

I am thankful that most Americans are hard working, considerate, and peace loving.

Smollett is playing the victim now that he has been exposed as a fraud. Is this his way of leading us with love into his next scripted cliff hanger?

Andy said...

Hey Jude,

Exactly. I noticed all of the (good) points that you made.

It actually does appear on the video tape that there was a female leaving the residence while Chris was loading his truck.

The "we" gave me a jarring, sick feeling in my stomach...I am not sure he is merely referring to his workmates.

HIs verbalization that someone was "behind him making him do it" is very concerning in my opinion.

I have been sick in bed, so I watched a lot of videos on the case yesterday.

1) Before Chris takes the polygraph, the FBI lady asks Chris to list all of the ways someone could make another person "disappear". Chris is acting like a dumb-dumb and not offering anything, so the FBI agent starts listing them saying "you could shoot them right? Or stab them?" And Chris then says "You could hang them" (?!)

I think Chris and his yucky lover Nicole KIssinger hung her. It is SA combined with a strong gut feeling that emerged hearing Chris state that Shannann was "face down" (which she usually did not sleep facedown) on the bed when Chris "nudged" her causing her to turn over onto her back so he could have his little talk with her about leaving her for that tranny-looking little hoebag, Nicole. Chris then (according to him) straddles her crushing her pregnant stomach while they chat. He then claims he began strangling her. The next time he looks at her she was "facedown" on the bed again. I, at that point, when i heard Chris describe this, knew she had not been strangled. Then when I heard him say "You could hang them" I realized what had probably happened.

I got a strong impression she was already dead when facedown & that she was thrown that way onto the bed.

Chris loaded rope onto his truck that morning.
Why? probably to get rid of it because he had hung her with it!

Chris felt like there was "someone behind him making him do what he did to Shannann".
There is a ceiling fan in Chris's bedroom and plenty of other places in the house where he could have hung her.

I have not read the discovery or autopsy.

I am using SA to say i believe she was hung and then thrown facedown on the bed.

Chris also buried Shannann facedown with her legs tucked underneath her. This is very unusual. My first impression is that it is somewhat of a fetal position. However, the main thing is he did not want to see her face while he was burying her and wanted to humiliate her.

I have watched all FBI interviews with Chris.

I believe Chris hung Shannann.

Again I don't know if this matches up with the autopsy, but I find it doubtful that they can tell a difference between strangling and hanging in many instances.

Andy said...

I also detected veracity in Chris' alleged gay lover, Trent's interview with FBI.

Chris told his gay lover Trent that he felt he was probably gay.

Chris' female affair partner, Nicole, was the next best thing to a man he could find...she willingly did deviant sexual practices with him so he could live out his gay fantasies. Chris killed his whole family because he is gay and didn't feel anything for them. All they were was his "beard".

He was also cruel to his gay lover, Trent. I actually felt bad for Trent. He was another one who was victimized by Chris.

Andy said...

I can't believe Chris is being coddled in a special prison where he is protected from other inmates and receiving cute little meals like mac 'n cheese with a bun and chocolate milk on "special days". This is not justice. I hope other prisoners get him. I have never hated any other criminal more than Chris. Yet Chris is being babied. Oh poor little Chris. They should have dumped him in those oil tanks. I hate him so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andy said...

Chris's beard is shaped too well...his eye for aesthetics is a little too "good". Most straught men cannot get such a flattering beard "line" .

Chris's mistress has a manly voice and she is so silly. Chris thought he was "all that" and a bag of chips because someone "liked" him.

Chris preferred NK who had no body compared to his gorgeous curvy wife Shann'ann.

Chris is a closeted gay man who treated his gay lover cruelly.

Chris's personality sucks and he acts like "oh look how gentle and shy I am Im sure what I did to my wife and kids won't effect your impression of me as dopey sweet Chris who just don't know how it all happened."

I don't know what Shannannn ever saw in him. She said that she was so taken by him when he let her sleep on his lap for 4 hours even though he started needing to pee. Is that seriously that impressive?

Chris wears gay "biking"shirts.

Chris tells the FBI about his cute little lunch "mac n cheese, a bun, and chocolate milk" like he sounds like he is 7 years old.

Chris;s mother turned him into a psycho and I have the impression Chris;s father exposed him to animal cruelty amd torture. It is impossible for me to believe Chris did what he did to his daughters not having been exposed to something horrific as a child. I get a bad vibe off his father like he has hurt cats and maybe even dogs and that Chris saw it. To be honest, I have a visual impression that Chris's Dad threw a cat into a barrel of oil or water or something,,,and this was very distrubing when Chris saw it.

Andy said...

I have a very strong impression that Chris's father killed a litter of kittens or puppies by drowning them in water or oil and that Chris saw it as a kid. I am being truthful---it's an impressiojn I got watching the FBI interview him.

Andy said...

Chris's mistress is not attractive, long stringy greasy hair, plain features, bug eyes, fake boobs,...puh-leaze. She is truly a skank and so disgusting how she let Chris sodomize her, luring him away from his beautiful pregnant wife once he opened the door to the devil.

Chris is gay!

Any guy who is really into fitness at that age is probably gay, Yes you heard it.

Andy said...

Any input welcome as I am learning....

Mystery Girl said...

Andy, you can't "correctly diagnose Chris" because you are not a licensed psychiatrist/psychotherapist, and therefore are not qualified to issue a definitive diagnosis. "Psychic flashes" are not tools for definitive diagnosis, either. (And an interest in fitness is not enough to "diagnose" sexual orientation, either. My father exercised every day of his life, and still does at 74. He is certainly not gay, and your regressive stereotyping on that subject is about the furthest thing from scientific I can think of, and helps no one.)

In trying to "understand" Chris, you're trying to understand a blank space. There is nothing there.

Forgive me, but you seem personally invested in this case to a worrying degree.

You will not win a prize for "understanding" Chris; there are no awards to be given out for Best Insight by an Amateur Sleuth. The police who actually worked this *closed* case will not be calling you to get your input. We all have cases we're invested in, that we spend time discussing and thinking about, but just as we need to be mindful of the difference between facts and speculation, we need to be mindful of the difference between being interested and becoming personally involved to the point of obsession, an being so desperate for insight that we invent things and assume our personal morality is universal. I'm sorry, but I feel like that's a line you're losing sight of.

I truly do not mean to insult you, and wish you only the best, but I feel like maybe it would benefit you to step away from the case for a few days and focus on something else. Obsession is never healthy.

Please take care of yourself.

Michael said...

I figured out what is bothering me overall about the Chris Watts case.

I listened to the FBI's 1st interview with Chris where he "confesses" to his father.

I listened to the FBI's 5 hour long interview with Chris done in prison this past week.

Everyone online is throwing around the terms Chris is a covert narcisisst, psychopath....but it occurred to me a few days ago that Chris seems much more like he has dependent personality disorder.

The main overarching concern I have is that Chris does not give a reliable admission/confession in any of those 8 hours of "confession" tapes.

The "confession" consist of him nodding yes or saying yes to statements fed to him by his father and then the FBI agents such as "so did you hurt her" "so what happened you strangled them?" AT one he demonstrates with a hand gesture to his father what he allegedly did to Shannann, which is his first admission of what he did to Shannon. What he did to the girls was fed to him by the FBI. What he did to Shannan was fed to him by his father in the interrogation room.

Chris absolutely has guilty knowledge, and I was totally on board with Chris is guilty....but I wonder why doesn't he give any type of reliable statement stating what he did or saying "I did -------". There are none.

Chris's dependant personality disorder could cause him to "go along and take responsibility for" something that he did not actually physically do if the person he is dependant on (his mistress Nicole Kessinger) wanted him to.

I am very curious if anyone has listened to the sections where Chris "confesses". Do you find it to be technically, according to SA, reliable? I'm fairly positive it is not reliable, and I am wondering what others think.

I thought it was odd that Nicole's (Chris's mistress') father said to the FBI agent "We just want to pound this down until there is nothing left" referring to discussing the case with the FBI. That is not a common expression. And I couldn't help but think that that is what what the FBI has said was done to the girls...they were literally pounded down into the narrow hatches of the oil tanks until "there was nothing left" (they went into the tanks).

Chris also says that Shannann did not fight back & the details he gives surrounding what he supposedly did to her are murky and the FBI also points that out repeatedly. There are some indicators of fabrication, as in, him fabricating that he did it.

I have thought he was guilty all this time and he definitely had guilty knowledge and certainly may be guilty of everything but what do others think about the actual linguisics of his confession?

Thanks in advance.

Daniel said...

Wanted to add: The FBI actually asked Chris during the recent interview if he actually did the killings or is he covering up for someone as one of their questions (this was after Chris has been convicted and doing life in prison), so it seems the concern I am expressing has also occurred to FBI.

Michael said...

Here is a 1 hour section of the first interview with FBI after the polygraph when Chris first confesses to his father in the interrogation room.

Would love to here feedback about the linguistics of the confession.

Anonymous said...

Latest update: Chris Watts is now on suicide watch.

Sailor534 said...

Anon and Hey Jude,

The Chris Watts case becomes more intriguing the more you look into it. I too am fascinated by the case.

One question I have and it may be nothihng is do you think it is at all odd or unusual that Shannann's friend Nicole (not the mistress a different Nicole) was texting and calling Shannann so early in the morning when she had just dropped Shannann off at 2 am from the airport, so both would have gotten to bed at the earliest around 2:15-2:30? Nicole expressed that she was concerned that Shannann hadn't texted or called her around the time of 6:45 because "usually she would be "harrassing" (word used in a lighthearted way) her by 6:45 to get started on the Thrive business activities for the day. Yet NIcole states that Shannenn was upset that she might only get 3 hours of sleep before her kids woke up. Nicole then becomes very concerned around 10:45, goes to her house and even goes into the obstretrcian's office to ask if Shannann had been to her appointment which was supposed to be late morning. I believe she goes into the OBGYN office before 1 pm.

Clearly either she had excellent instincts or is there anything odd about it?

Also, do you think it is weird that Shannenn is shown on her doorbell cam arriving home at around 2:00am, yet Shannann does not appear on the neighbor's camera arriving home at all that night, yet it does pick up Chris loading stuff into his truck? It is supposedly a motion sensitive camera yet doesn't pick a lot of stuff up.

lynda said...

I guess the hate/fear-mongering/and calls to violence by trump are spreading outside the USA now. trump states that the military, police, and biker gangs are his own personal goon squad who when will get bad.

This new terrorist heard his call..

Terrorist attack in New Zealand, up to 50 (current reporting) slaughtered by white nationalist whose manifesto includes

"Tarrant said he was a supporter of Donald Trump as a 'symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'".

Anonymous said...

My heart goes out to the victims of the disgusting Christchurch terrorist attack and their relatives.

The MSM, high-profile Democrats and (extreme) leftists constantly depicting president Trump as a racist and white supremacist is very irresponsible, dangerous and divisive in my opinion. People that don’t follow the news critically buy into this vile and politically driven narrative. Evil people may even use it to justify their heinous hate crimes. It doesn’t appear the Christchurch terrorist attack was primarily inspired by this narrative though. Tarrant wrote that he wanted to avenge those killed in the Stockholm truck attack which was carried out by Uzbek asylum seeker and IS sympathizer Rakhmat Akilov. Tarrant also wrote that he was not a supporter of president Trump as a policy maker and leader (“Dear God no”).


Mystery Girl said...

I completely agree, Autumn. They don't care who their irresponsible and false narrative hurts, or what danger it puts other people into. Trump is nowhere near a white supremacist, but the media's constant libeling of him and millions of Americans could bring real harm to many--frankly, IMO, it is a testament to what great people most Americans are that we have not had more incidents, given the venom and lies the media spreads 24/7. You know they will never talk about the Stockholm attack as a motive for this, they will focus exclusively on Trump and imply that he's holding regular KKK meetings in the Rose Garden and that he encouraged the attack, or some such nonsense. Their hate blinds them to the truth and they genuinely do not carte about the harm they do if it gets them what they want.

And Lynda, Trump is no more responsible for some loon deciding he is a "symbol of renewed white identity" than J.D. Salinger was responsible for John Lennon's death, or the Beatles for the Tate/LaBianca murders. Where have you seen Trump state he has a "personal goon squad," please? Where have you ever seen Trump issue a "call to violence?" What nonsense.

No one ever accused Trump of racism until he ran for President, and suddenly they're all screeching that he has altars to Hitler in his basement or something. FFS.

Oliver said...


The New Zealand shooter also wrote that he does not like Trump as a leader or policy maker. That hardly sounds like he is a Trump fanatic. He actually wrote that his main inspiration is Candance Owens, who is a black female.

It very much hurt my heart to hear of the shooter's horrific attack on innocent people, mowing them down, killing them in cold blood, shooting both men and women in the head execution style to make sure that he had "finished them off"--his cold, yet somewhat celebratory demeanor as he pulled up to the mosque listening to folk songs reminded me of Alex from "A Clockwork Orange" yet of course, not exactly like him. The world is getting very f7cked up that crazies now do these mass shootings like they think it is not really real, they are just playing a video game. Yet, they DO know it is real. Has reality become a "false reality"? Has reality lost some of it's reality? I am no philosopher and don't know all the big words and complicated thoughts of how Philosophy works, the different terms, the brilliant ideas going back to Aristotle and his thoughts, but I will say from my humble perspective that reality, in some way, to some folks, is no longer "real". This is based on my intuition. I am in no way a learned person and also have some spelling problems, but the human mind is changing, perceiving reality as false or unreal, yet, that doesn't really fully describe what I'm saying, because they do know that reality is "real" is as if the "substance", the integrity, the depth of reality has been torn, the 3-D image flattened on the screen of these lunatic's minds. Yet, that doesn't quite capture it does it? But there is something lacking.

God rest the souls of the slain.

Tru said...

The NZ mosque shooter's manifesto.

Be careful about assigning blame. You may be doing exactly what Tarrant wants.

Andy said...

I have a question. I watched most of the video of the NZ shooting—I had to shut it off when the shooter comes back in with a new rifle & starts shooting the bodies in of the piles in the head after he had already sprayed the piles of bodies repeatedly with bullets & there is clearly noone alives in the piles. It was too sickening to watch, however it did make me wonder WHY he did such excessive “overkill” to those people. It made me wonder whether the attack was “personal” rather than political? I DO NOT recommend watching the video but in the video he clearly has personal hatred he is venting. I am surprised the news is not mentioning the “overkill” factor because it is VERY obvious if one has seen the video.

Anonymous said...

The dailymail shouldbe sued just like cnn.

Anonymous said...

OT: Christchurch terrorist attack/Tarrant manifesto

Andy, I didn't and won't watch the video but I ploughed through part of Tarrant’s sickening manifesto provided by Tru (see above). Yes, I think it is personal too. I find it hard to believe that merely playing violent computer games can cause someone to commit such a horrendous crime. Something personal, some personal (rather than political) hatred, must have triggered Tarrant i.m.o..

Below are the thoughts I had when reading the manifesto. It’s just amateur psychology and not based on SA principles. I may be totally off the mark. Also: it’s not my intention to seek excuses for the terrorist.

First words are always important. Tarrant starts the introduction to his manifesto with: "It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates. If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change." One of Tarrant’s overriding idea's in the manifesto is that birthrates of non-white's must drop. He seems not so much to hate non-whites or muslims per se (he says he’s mostly influenced by Candace Owens, a black woman, and the only muslims he truly hates are whites that converted to islam). He rather hates that they invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people” Replacement is another overriding concept (related to birthrates). In fact replacement seems to be the most important theme to Tarrant: his manifesto is entitled “The Great Replacement”.

So birthrates and replacement is what Tarrant keeps hammering at. Could it be that he himself felt replaced by high birthrates? His parents John and Joyce Tarrant had a very high birthrate. He is the sixth of nine children. Tarrant’s concern is that the European people will be replaced due to mass immigration. Perhaps “the European people” is a subconscious metaphor for himself and “mass immigration” is a metaphor for his (younger?) siblings. The “convert” (the one he truly hates) – i.e.: “those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, (…) and became blood traitors to their own race” – could be a metaphor for his mother/father/primary caretaker. Tarrant is one of nine children from a low income family with, I believe, both parents working. Under these circumstances (including “invading” new siblings due to "high birthrate" of parents) it’s a possibility that he was or felt severely neglected as a child (even if his parents did their very best). Experts say small children can experience such neglect as a total destruction of their lives, a murderous attack, since they literally depend on their parents for survival. This then creates a subconscious post-traumatic stress disorder. Certain events can trigger a regression and make the person crack and retaliate in a moment of unmitigated rage.



Anonymous said...


OT: Christchurch terrorist attack/Tarrant manifesto

In his manifesto, Tarrant says he was triggered by the death of a “young, innocent and dead” child, a victim of the Stockholm terror attack (Ebba Akerlund). Below I have copied Tarrant’s description of this trigger. In it he clearly links the death of Ebba to attacks on himself (see “my own” and the repetition of the words “attacks on my (…)”). Perhaps the death of Ebba made Tarrant subconsciously relive a childhood trauma as described in my previous comment. Notice how he almost immediately introduces the concept of “mother” (primary caretaker) closely followed by “murdered” and “attacker” and “stolen” and “the attacker coming” and “a death at the hands of the invaders”. Is he subconsciously referring to a young and innocent child “murdered” by an attacking mother? A mother stolen by invading siblings, causing a young and innocent child to figuratively die? A life, a childhood stolen by a mother producing invading siblings (immigrants)? A child “walking to meet (…) [his] mother” but not able to reach her because of these “invaders”?

Young, innocent and dead Ebba. Ebba was walking to meet her mother after school, when she was murdered by an Islamic attacker, driving a stolen vehicle through the shopping promenade on which she was walking. Ebba was partially deaf, unable to hear the attacker coming. Ebba death at the hands of the invaders, the indignity of her violent demise and my inability to stop it broke through my own jaded cynicism like a sledgehammer. I could no longer ignore the attacks. They were attacks on my people, attacks on my culture, attacks on my faith and attacks on my soul.

I also found remarkable that the manifesto has a chapter entitled ”The Rape of European Women Invaders” in which Tarrant gives a long list of Wikipedia entries that seem to be about child sexual abuse rings rather than the rape of “European women invaders”.


Anonymous said...

Mystery Girl, not many people could endure what Trump has to endure (talk about hate indeed). And the MSM (or large parts thereof) turning into political propaganda machines is one of the more scary things happening in the world right now I think.

I've heard calls to violence against and/or to harassment of conservatives coming from the left, e.g. Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Eric Holder, etc. For no other apparent reason than them (i.e. conservatives) having a different opinion. As to Trump calling to violence: during rallies Trump has had tomatoes thrown at him and protesters swinging at the audience and attempting to storm the stage he was on. In that context he has said things like "Knock the crap out of him, would you" (in case such incidents would happen again) and "I'll pay your legal fees". Maybe that's what some would qualify as "calls to violence"? Literally speaking that's true, I suppose. It would be a bit disingenuous to get outraged over that though, because these protesters committed violent acts (or threatened to do so) in the first place. People should be allowed to defend themselves (proportionally, of course). Also: Trump has a very direct way of saying things and often says things in a joking manner. That’s his way of expressing himself. Most people are perfectly able to put that into perspective but some seem purposely tone deaf to it.


Anonymous said...

Good smart people, please take back the Democratic party. Please clean up the despicable dirty mess it has become.

Anonymous said...

Tawana B's press statement with Al Sharpton. First words.

Andy said...

Autumn, Wow! That is an amazing analysis!

You hit the nail on the head—he must have been severely neglected due to his parent’s birthrate and lack of money! His siblings as invaders! Quite a brilliant analysis!

I think it’s highly likely he was sexually abused also.

He writes that one of his triggers was that a Muslim shot the young innocent partially deaf girl & he was unable to stop it. I wonder if one of his siblings was killed due to neglect or violence...with that many kids, neighbors may not have evennoticed or he may have witnesses a female sibling being beaten or raped.

I read that the shooter’s father died of cancer at age 49....the kids could have become targets for predators at that point as well as possibly suffering hunger/neglect due to the father nolonger earning money.

I really need to read the manifesto. Thank you for your sharp insights!

Anonymous said...

Did you read it yet Andy?

Andy said...


I have read about 30 pages of the manifesto so far, and I am seeing "birthrates" and "invaders"/"invasion" mentioned as the top 2 terms.

I notice that in his self-interview he answers the questions in a concise a
defintive and clear fashion, one which also shows high levels of insight into his own feelings and emotional states.

Then I noticed this "In front of those endless despair turned the SHAME, my shame to guilt, my guilt to anger and my anger to rage."

Then, after answering another series of questions definitively and concisely he comes to the the FIRST question he cannot answer clearly, the first answer about which he is confused, ambiguous, it is the first aberration in his style of answering questions completely definitively.

The question: "Were/Are you a Christian?"

When I know, I will tell you."

Why the confusion for someone so clear and definitive in all his answers?
Why is it "complicated"? Why is he confused? Why doesn't he "KNOW"?

My sense so far is that "invasion" is the main concern of the attacker. "Invasion" is also a way to describe rape. What could make his relationship with Christianity/and/or his belief in Christianity more complicated and confusing to where he just doesn't "know", than if he had experienced sexual abuse by a Catholic priest?

It is another way to look at it. What if he was repressing his anger and misdirecting it at a different religion, at a different place of worship (mosque)?

What has made him so confused about his CAtholic faith? What has made is so "complicated:?
That is what I want to know.
It is the ONLY point in the manifesto so far where he has shown ANY confusion and it is a deep confusion about whether he is CAtholic or not.
I will continue reading....

Andy said...

I just finished reading the manifesto & my overarching impression is that I feel that perhaps he had an unborn child that was aborted.

Birthrates, birthrates, birthrates...over and over he says this and that the low birthrates with be the "decay and death" of white/European culture.

"The invaders"---abortionists

rows of white crosses (the millions of aborted unborn)

Shame turning to guilt, guilt turning to anger, anger turning to rage "because he could do nothing to stop the killing" of the "innocent, young" girl (partially deaf girl). He says "I couldn't do anything to stop it". It sounds like the grief of a father,

Did he get someone(girlfriend) pregnant, he wanted the baby, was there something found in utero to be wrong with the baby (like the young girl's "deafness"_ and the mother aborted the baby? He feels shame as a father he could do nothing to stop it? Shame turns to rage? He feels great rage when he sees the "strong cultures" with "strong families" and "high birth rates"?

"REplacement" "Replacement" "Replacement" he says over and over.

Did the "intruder" (abortionist) "replace" him as the "father"???

There is no way that I believe that he was looking at rows of crosses in a graveyard from soldiers who had died long ago and began "sobbing" "alone in his car"and feeling so helpless because he was mourning the lives of dead soldiers from long ago. It all sounds like the grief of a father.

The only other part in the manifesto (besides the Are you a Christian? question where he becomes unsure how to answer is the question
"What can be done to raise birthrates"....He answers "Im not sure" and then makes a few suggestions that sound almost half-hearted compared to his other writing. RED FLAG that he is holding something back. He probably wants to say "Stop abortion"

This is my final impression of the manifesto:

The voice behind it is expressing the grief of a father who could not protect his child. (I am not saying that that is definitely what happened, but that is the "voice" I hear in the answers.)

He is pathologically envious when he sees families and cultures with a high birthrate. Why?

He expresses grief and shame as his primary emotions which he himself explains, turned into "rage".

He himself explains that the murder of the "young, innocent girl" was the turning point for him. That, and staring at the rows of crosses in the cemetary. Why did he drive to the cemetary in the first place? Is it because he needed to grieve? Why was driving from town to town and noticing people who either were "alone" or "had children"? Why??? Then he goes to the graveyard and cries.

Andy said...

Maybe he feels that no child could ever "replace" the one he lost. He drives around from town to town, noticing the Europeans are "childless" and the "invaders" have lots of children. He calls those children (and their parents) "replacements".

I hear the grief of a father that has morphed into something terrible.

Anonymous said...

the concern Europeans have is that their govt is intentionally replacing the citizens with foreigners.

Anonymous said...

Now why????? Would they do that???????

Andy said...

Anon 1002,

Yes, but he also shows pathological envy towards the "invaders" strong culture, faith, etc and directly and repeatedly ties that to "birth rate".

You are missing the ENVY tied to "birthrate".

He killed them because he envies them and he wanted to destroy what he envies.

He envies their birthrate.


There is no way in my mind that it could not be for some personal reason, not political.

He repeatedly puts down his own culture from many different angles while purporting to be a great and courageous defender of his culture!

He PRAISES the culture of the "invaders" and is particularly envious of their birth rate.


Do you actually believe that he sat in the graveyard crying about crosses marking soldiers graves from long ago. That is the one time he shows "weakness": he paints the picture of his "sobbing" "alone in his car".

The attack was personal. YOu need to get into his mind to figure out what he was really angry about. Why would he defend a culture (his culture) from the "invaders" when he actually hates his own culture? He insulted it from every angle while expressing admiration for the invaders culture, faith, etc. What inspired the attack? Envy of the birthrate of the "invaders". Why?????

I hear the grief of a father morphed into something terrible.

Andy said...

He did sit in the graveyard and cry but it wasn't because of the crosses marking soldiers graves from long ago.

What was he crying about?

Use your brain.

Andy said...

Why does he say "I sat there ALONE in my car and sobbed,"

Why does he add the unnecessary word "alone" when we, the reader, already knew he was alone?

Andy said...

If my memory serves me correctly, that was the only instance in the entire manifesto where he used the word "alone".

At what other time in his life did he sit there alone in his car sobbing?

Andy said...

I;m sorry. He references the word "alone" another time in the manifesto where he is driving from town to town and watching how the Europeans are walking alone and childless compared to the "invaders" having many children.

The word alone is tied to the word childless which is connected to the emotion of grief.

You do the math.

Anonymous said...

OT: Christchurch terrorist attack

Andy, many of the things you write had crossed my mind as well. When I read the manifesto and the references to fertility etc., I wondered: is he perhaps infertile? Does he want children and is he unable to? But I more or less discarded this thought when I read the following statement:

“If you believe we need to correct the white birth rates, why didn’t you start a family and do it yourself? Because if we do not destroy the invaders first, our own birthrates will mean nothing. We do not have the birth rates to fight them at their game, nor should we as it is ultimately destructive to nature and culture.”

It seems he doesn’t want children or at least is not particularly interested in having them (if we have to believe him at his word). He thinks the world is already overpopulated. Elsewhere in the manifesto he addresses the question why he was also going to kill “the innocent child” (singular) of the “invaders”. So he knew that he was going to and specifically wanted to kill children. He could have only shot the adults but he chose not to. It seems he was trying to find an explanation/justification: why do I want to do something so awful. Maybe he subconsciously sees the children as his main threat and (thus) killing them as his primary objective (after all it’s the births and birthrates that bother him so much).

As to him having lost a child to abortion: it could be. But he is seriously messed up, not relationship material at all. That doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t have a girlfriend at one point and made her pregnant. But somehow I doubt that. I also wonder if an abortion can mentally destroy a man (who wanted the child) to the point that he plans and commits such a horrendous attack. An abortion would at least mean that he is fertile and could have children in the future (but that is thinking rationally). I feel that to be able to so coldly destroy people, Tarrant’s own life must have been severely destroyed (in reality or in his perception). That’s what he seeks revenge for. Tarrant’s words can point to many different underlying personal motives. Him sobbing alone in the car could also mean that the crosses reminded him of dying a thousand deaths and crying alone as a child. It’s just an idea.

In any case, something must have seriously gone wrong in his childhood/family life. The first question he answers is: “Who are you”. His answer starts with: “Just an ordinary White man”. He probably knows he is anything but. He also says “I had a regular childhood, without any great issues” and “I am just a regular White man, from a regular family.” As Hey Jude pointed out: that is overdoing it. He is actually telling us where to look for the answer: in his childhood, in his family there are great issues to be found.



Anonymous said...

OT: Christchurch terrorist attack

I do think it is very interesting that you raise the issue of abortion. Psychiatrist Andrew G. Hodges states that a near abortion can be a traumatic experience for the unborn and can lead to a post-traumatic stress disorder. When I read that, I at first thought: he (Hodges) must have an anti-abortion agenda. But it actually makes a lot of sense. If a pregnant woman considers an abortion, the unborn child may very well feel/hear that and perceive it as a lethal threat. Even though, once born, the child doesn’t remember it, it may be stored in the unconscious mind. So I wondered if Tarrant’s mother may have considered abortion. But since his parents had three more children that doesn’t seem likely.

Some people may discard the idea that near abortion or severe neglect in early childhood can cause people to go completely off the rails. After all, so many women consider abortion, so many children are neglected. These children don’t all end up as terrorists. I think that doesn’t mean such a trauma cannot be a possible motive for heinous revenge killings though. Most soldiers with PTSD don’t commit shocking crimes, but some do when triggered. Unborn children and small children are the most vulnerable people of all. They cannot take care of their own needs or defend themselves or put things into perspective. All the more terrorizing an imminent murder (abortion) and severe neglect must be to them. All the more destructive the resulting traumas and the possible revenge.

I had overlooked the religion aspect. My only thought on this was: how can he say he’s a Christian and at the same time plan and commit such an unchristian act (but again: that is rationally thinking). Religion may well be an important factor. It reminds me of a French case: the bizarre Dupont de Ligonnès murders. Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès drugged his wife and four teenage children, shot them in their sleep, buried them in the garden and subsequently disappeared (reminiscent of the John List case in the US). His family and friends were baffled and incredulous. He seemed such a nice, middle-class man. How could he have done such a thing? The answer probably lies (partly) in his youth. From his first years his mother and grandmother – both very strict Catholics fundamentalists – made him attend the first mass on a daily basis. His mother also founded an apocalyptic and occult prayer group, holding prayers every evening in their apartment in an obsessive fight against Satan. She claimed to receive messages from the departed, including the Holy Virgin, Jesus and even God. Several times she declared the world was going to end. Meetings were held to await the apocalypse. Several ex-members had to get psychiatric help and an anti-sect organization was informed. So I think Dupont de Ligonnès had the threat of death and destruction hanging over his head throughout his childhood. By his own mother, the one who should have reassured him and kept him safe. It sounds absolutely terrifying and traumatizing. Nevertheless, just like Tarrant he overemphasized his childhood as normal and happy. But I digress.



Anonymous said...

OT: Christchurch terrorist attack

What you write about “invading” also crossed my mind (possible abuse). All the more because he includes all these links to articles about child sex abuse rings. See also the following statement

Pedophile politicians, pedophile priests and pedophile pop stars, demonstrating to all the true depravity of our age. Art and beauty subverted beyond all recognition, bauhaus travesties replacing nouveau wonders, soulless metropolitan architecture of glass and steel reflecting no society, no culture, no people and therefore belonging everywhere, and no where. Suicidal, nihilistic and degenerate pop icons produced from a dead culture: Michael Jackson(pedophile, self hating, self mutilating, opiod addict);Madonna(degenerate,drug addict, childless, whore, anti-christian, pro miscegenation) Kurt Cobain(suicidal, drug addict, self hater, anti-social), Freddy Mercury(lifelong identity crisis, lifelong battle with hedonism and drug use, eventual death due to sexual hedonism)just to name a few. “

Why the hammering at “pedophile”, “suicidal”, “self hating”, “drug use”, “lifelong identity crisis”, “lifelong battle” resulting in “death due to sexual hedonism”. What (with the exception of Jackson's abuse) does he care how these celebrities lead/led their lives and what battles they had (if the qualifications he attributes to them are even all true). Or is he perhaps telling us something about his own past and/or state of mind and/or habits. Did he, as a gym trainer, for instance take performance enhancing drugs? Is he subconsciously telling us that these qualifications, most importantly, sexual hedonism caused the “eventual death” of the Christchurch victims?


Michael said...

Autumn, Wow! Very interesting all that you have written and excellent points you have made.

Having had time to digest the manifesto, one thing that I began to think is that the shooter's main concern is the death/decay of European culture, and nothing is more closely tied to European culture (and even birth rate) than Christianity. Christianity gave birth to all the beautiful works of art and gorgeous architecture also. Recently, the news stories about the pedophile priests and the Pope's failure to institute any changes that might in any way repair the damage done or prevent further damage has led to a belief that the Catholic Church is in peril or dying out from people leaving. If one is an intelligent person, one realizes that the Catholic Church is already ruined and people have lost their faith, being almost reluctant participants in the mass if they even go (most don't).The Church will never recover from this, one's faith in the Church is destroyed, there is no way to have faith in something so poisoned, contaminated, and responsible for so much evil towards innocents. Faith in Jesus will remain, but one thing he may be thinking when he looks at the crosses, those who have died for European culture and faith is that it is actually heartbreaking the Jesus died on the cross and that the Church that rose up around Jesus' sacrifice (of his life) and uses the cross as it's main symbol seems in many ways like a pedophile ring that has destroyed so many innocent lives. Satan has infiltrated the church and destroyed it. For someone so concerned about maintaining European culture and faith, there is nothing that has destroyed it more than the pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church...the Church has been destroyed from the inside out, the virus has already spread far and wide and destroyed the Church. It is already ruined. How will any believer recover their faith, knowing that so many of the priests (who were thought to be men of God, and thought to have the ability to "forgive sins" and perform sacraments and guide their flocks) were actually embodiments of sinister evil, using the priesthood as mask to hide their evil and gain access to children and that their higher ups covered up for them, moved them around, where they then molested more children. The hierarchy which makes up so much of the church has been revealed to be profoundly and disturbingly corrupt, working against Jesus and all he stood for, rather doing Satan's work on earth!
Perhaps the shooter was a victim of priest abuse. I believe it was extremely widespread throughout Australia. The shooter expresses envy for the "invaders" strong faith, families and culture and says "why would they ever convert to our "weak" culture"?

If one follows his train of thought, how could his rage and helplessness have originated from anything other than the decay of the Catholic Church? He seems very intelligent, and I doubt that factor went over his head. But the Catholic Church is already destroyed, they will never recover from the pedophile scandal that took place all across the globe. I believe we can know for sure is that the shooter envies Muslim culture, faith and strong families and wanted to destroy them. The fact he attacked them in their place and worship and the overkill he used, it came from something "personal". I think there is a high probability he was sexually abused and feels the CAtholic Church responsible for the abuse. When he answers the question "Are you a Christian?" He says "It's complicated. When I figure it out, I'll let you know." In my opinion, one needs to ask why is his relationship with Christianity so complicated. All of his other answers are definitive and clear.

Anonymous said...

Michael, that is very interesting. Christianity/Catholicism is probably more important in this case than I at first realized. It's not a coincidence that the attack happened in Christchurch....


Anonymous said...

Now dont you think its probable that in 70+ pages he would have said he'd been abused by the RCC if he had been. What exactly is the coincidence of the city Christchurch?

Michael said...



It is symbolic in the shooter’s mind. The shootimg occurred in Christ church.

Anonymous said...

I just heard all charges were dropped. Jussie made a short statement after his lawyer spoke to the press. He stated "I wouldn't be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I was accused of." He also said he wouldn't put his family through "the fire" of the whole thing. Personally, I find those statements compelling, though I still believe he's lying. I would love to see Peter analyse.

Anonymous said...

Is smollett a dangerous liar?

Statement Analysis Blog said...


LuciaD said...

I think he has proven that.

Anonymous said...

the FBI’s child trafficking and child prostitution unit requested that Chicago PD send them Smollett’s iCloud account information. You may be on to something,sir. Some of smollett’s police report was released and this information is in that released information. Specifically, Gregory Wing with FBI requested the information

Anonymous said...

Kamala Harris tweeted the following about Barr's press conference on Mueller's report:

"Bar is acting more like Trump’s defense attorney than the nation's Attorney General. His press conference was a stunt, filled with political spin and propaganda.⁰ ⁰Americans deserve the unvarnished truth. We need Special Counsel Mueller to testify publicly in Congress."

Or was she leaking about Kim Foxx's and her own role in Jussie Smollett's stunt?