Tuesday, June 25, 2019

London Bus Attack Analysis

Last Wednesday, I had a date with Chris. We got on the Night Bus, heading for her place in Camden Town, climbed upstairs and took the front seats. We must have kissed or something because these guys came after us. I don't remember if they were already there or if they got on after us. There were at least four of them. They started behaving like hooligans, demanding that we kissed so they could enjoy watching, calling us 'lesbians' and describing sexual positions. I don't remember the whole episode, but the word 'scissors' stuck in my mind. It was only them and us there. In an attempt to calm things down, I started making jokes. I thought this might make them go away. Chris even pretended she was sick, but they kept on harassing us, throwing us coins and becoming more enthusiastic about it. The next thing I know is that Chris is in the middle of the bus fighting with them. On an impulse, I went over there only to find her face bleeding and three of them beating her up. The next thing I know is I'm being punched. I got dizzy at the sight of my blood and fell back. I don't remember whether or not I lost consciousness. Suddenly the bus had stopped, the police were there and I was bleeding all over. Our stuff was stolen as well. I don't know yet if my nose is broken, and I haven't been able to go back to work, but what upsets me the most is that VIOLENCE HAS BECOME A COMMON THING, that sometimes it's necessary to see a woman bleeding after having been punched to feel some kind of impact. I'm tired of being taken as a SEXUAL OBJECT, of finding out that these situations are usual, of gay friends who were beaten up JUST BECAUSE. We have to endure verbal harassment AND CHAUVINIST, MISOGYNISTIC AND HOMOPHOBIC VIOLENCE because when you stand up for yourself s*** like this happens. By the way, I am thankful to all the women and men in my life that understand that HAVING BALLS MEANS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I just hope that in June, Pride Month, stuff like this can be spoken out loudly so they STOP HAPPENING!

II. Statement With Analysis 

Last Wednesday,Ihad a date withChris.

a.    The statement does not begin with a pronoun. 
b.    Priority: element of time 

Context:  An assault is “personal” and it is intrusive. It is personal because it is “us” or “our body” that is invaded.  What makes it “intrusive” (invasive) – the element of surprise or lack of expectation. 

 Wegot on the Night Bus, heading for her placein Camden Townclimbedupstairs and tookthe frontseats.

a.    Unnecessary information regarding what town they were headed and to specific location. 
b.    “we” is now produced when in public (Night Bus) and…
c.    Front and Center is noted, with unnecessary information that slows down the pace. 
d.    It is important to the subject, not that they were assaulted, but these unnecessary details are known to the public. Why?
e.    Incomplete action (“heading for…” not “headed towards”) 
f.     For whatever purpose, our subject “climbed” and our subject “took” ****
These terms, in context, appear to indicate a public display – the “front” seats located “upstairs”---unnecessary inclusion on both. 
g.    Could “climb” and “took front seats”reflect the subject’s experience as a flight attendant? 

 We must havekissed or somethingbecausetheseguys came after us.

a.    Weak commitment (“must have”) of a physical (sensory) action by someone who began her statement about being on a date.  Note the use of “we” as our subject looks back to write to the public about what happened.  
b.    Q. Does the subject fail to remember due to trauma? A. No. Please note the details of not only where they sat, but how they got there, according to the subject. Incongruent with trauma.  High hormonal response from attack gives us an expectation of recall. 
c.    must have” is weak assertion. Q. Did they kiss? A. She does not tell us. She further weakens the assertion with two more points:
d.    “or something”—allows for the weakness of “kiss” to be supplanted by another activity 
e.    because” is unnecessary information to explain why “guys” “came after us.” 
f.     These three points of sensitivity suggest that she is truthful: “or something” caused the guys to come after us, but she does not tell us what it is and she does not commit to it being a kiss. She allows it to be something other than a kiss; therefore, we now allow it to be caused by something other than a kiss. 
g.    The subject is not working in detail from memory, but is “reasoning” what “must have” happened. This sentence is telling us to ask, “Tell us what happened to cause these guys to go after you?” The subject is concealing the reason why the “guys” went after, not attacked, them. 
h.    came after us”--- we need to know what does “came after” mean? 
i.     came after us” is not attack, but softer language (in comparison to attack, bloody photos) 
j.     There is no violence yet in the statement. 
k.    Why the use of “guys” here? What made the attackers or teens “guys” right here, in context of withholding information as to the cause of the “came after us”? 
l.     The “guys” are “these” (close), which in context of withheld information causes us to ask, “did our subject (and/or Chris?) have any communication or contact with the alleged attackers prior to this point in the statement? 
m.  She cannot bring herself to tell us it was the kissing that caused “guys” to come after them.  She allowed us to think of something else, while not telling us. We follow her lead. 

 I don't rememberif they were alreadythereor if they got on after us.

a.    Contamination sensitivity from police interview?
b.    Ifnotcontaminated: Our subject should only tell us what she remembers. This is unnecessary information that is about the element of time. 
As this is “in the negative” it is elevated in importance. 
c.    The failure of memory is about time --- 
d.    We note that she was doing “something” to which she withheld in her statement. 
e.    Speculation: we do not know what it was, therefore, these are presented as questions--- could it have been a sex act? Could they (or our subject) been on her phone?  Could our subject have been already (time) communicating with the alleged perpetrators? 
f.     Element of time continues to be important to the subject. 

 There were at leastfour of them.

a.    Appropriate estimate consistent with larger assault events – or instigated fight or assault 
b.    Possible interaction with four of six? 


a.    They were not “hooligans” nor “hooligan”likeprior to this point in time in the statement.

demandingthat wekissed sothey could enjoywatching

a.    “demanding” 
b.    “so” – how would she know they are enjoying it?  (she does not quote them) 
c.    Why the need to explain “why” they made demands? 
d.    Change of verb tense while repeating “kissing”—
e.    Did she (they) kiss for the “guys” and now they are “ like hooligans” demanding more? 

calling us 'lesbians'

false narrative of victimization –if so, its use tells us that the missing information from the subject is guilt related…
is she trivializing the attack that left her and Chris bloodied? 

and describingsexualpositions.Idon't rememberthe whole episode,

a.    “describing” takes time.  It takes interaction. It takes pause. It means listening, paying attention etc. 
b.    “I don’t remember” in this context, is for our subject to deceptively withhold information 
c.    “episode” is neutral. It can be positive or negative. An attack is negative. This is not the language of an attack at this point in the statement. “Episode” can be one of many---please note external info that the subject described 10 years like this. “Episode” can also be voyeuristic (like seeing a “sitcom” of someone’s life on TV). 
d.    Consider the softer or neutral word “episode” may be related to her withholding of information of her own words/actions in this period of time. 
e.    “episode” is a neutral linguistic disposition towards an attack.  Consider that the subject may not want to include her own activities/communication in this event as it would condemn herself. 

 butthe word 'scissors' stuckin mymind.

but”– refutation or comparison with what preceded it. 

“scissors” – cutting, they can be a weapon,   The only person in present in this sentence (passive is the subject, herself.  We note it is passively given---no one is accused of carrying a weapon.  With no one else in the sentence (person) but our subject, we should consider possible act of a “weapon” (utilized) in her language.  She may wish to be interpreted as saying she feared one of them carrying a weapon but she does not. We cannot interpret her words.  

Why did scissors enter her language?
a.    Sexual position of lesbianism? 
b.    Violence?
c.    Cutting? Whom? What? Where? How? Why? 
d.    What was on her mind at this point in the statement that she thought to use this word?
e.    We should consider this as possible manipulation by expressing it without detail, coming off the “I don’t remember” 
f.     Is something “stuck” in her mind? 

Please note “scissors” is not consistent in the narrative, but appears to be artificially added for effect. Therefore, it is very important to the subject and to the analysis. 

*Why “scissor”here?

Could she want the audience to believe the “guys” wanted to see “scissoring”?

Or, could she want her audience to believe she was in real danger due to the “hooligans” possibly having a weapon? 

Please consider this comes as she is describing the “episode” –not the attack.  

Note “we” is now “I” and “my” – 

Question--- Did Chris say “no” to more, which caused the break here? 

Please consider that she is telling the truth that “scissors” was stuck in her mind.  Not that anyone pulled one out, used one, or threatened.  She conceals HOW this word got stuck in her mind.  Was it she, herself, that used it? 

Was she “reliving” in her mind, a performance in an episode? 

Did Chris object? (note the distancing language in the priority) 

Did a request or demand for “scissoring” turn the “guys” into “hooligans”?
Or, could a refusal to “scissor” have caused the change? 

 It was onlythemand usthere. In an attempt to calmthingsdownstartedmakingjokes.

a.    Note the order, “them” before “us” --- they are “like hooligans” now –she lists “them” before the victims at this point in the statement. 
b.    The subject has withheld information about her role in this, now feels the need to explain why she told jokes. 
c.    What went on that they now need to become “calm”?  (see “climbed” and “took”, front, etc) 
d.    it was in jest” is a common form of deception to cover words. 
e.    She didn’t use communicative language for jokes, she was “making”—(started) – was this physical jokes or gestures? 

Does she need to cover or explain her actions (unintended recipient) due to possibly not obtaining public sympathy?

Did she fear, “you provoked them!” as a response, rather than pity for victim status? 

“things” needed to be calmed. She did not need to calm the hooligans down. She needed to calm “things” down. This suggests interactive behaviors that escalated. When we calm things down, we’ve been involved. 

 Ithought this mightmake them go away.

“came at us”---now she wants them to “go away” ---
To “go away” is not to stop the assaultive behavior. She was telling jokes. 

If one is telling “jokes”, one is holding an audience. 

She used her “jokes” to make them go away? 

When one is being entertained, one pays attention, not walk away. Jokes are used to bring in attention—not to drive it away.  

****What did she say to them that she now wishes to be seen as “jokes”?

Insults could ruin the publicity, exploitation and attention she seeks.  This is why the testimony of the boys is vital. Given the political climate, we may never know from media. 
*Did she insult them?
Did she infuriate them?
Did she threaten them?
Did  she humiliate them? 

 Chris even pretended she was sick, but they kept on harassing us, throwing us coins and becoming moreenthusiastic about it.

She and Chris are still separated. 
Chris “even pretended”, which takes time, to be sick. 

Note “enthusiastic” is an unexpected positive word by one who is being “harassed” –incongruence noted – 

Throwing coins--- not at us, but “throwing us coins” is “kept” (continual)--- they did not throw coins “at” the subject and Chris.  Soft language. 

Consider that our subject was acting out a sexualized episode for her audience in this episode.
Consider that Chris may have feigned to be sick to not have to perform (“scissoring?”) any longer. 

 The next thing I knowis that Chris is in the middle of the busfightingwith them. 

This was a fight. This is her language chosen. 

This is why there is a distinct absence of intrusive assaultive language in the subject’s statement. 

On an impulse, I went over thereonly tofindher face bleeding and three of them beating her up. 

“On an impulse” she has the need to editorialize her account, as if it was without pre-thought. She is adding to her story. Please consider her “jokes” is the language of communication just prior to the main event. 

Did the subject instigate this “fight” with both her communication and her actions? 


Please note external info:  She now has two fundraisers from the public 

Note the order reflects priority--- Chris fighting, comes before Chris being beat up. 

Please consider that the subject may be shifting responsibility for the “fight”
 to or towards Chris. The subject was only making “jokes” but Chris was “fighting.” 

The subject was making jokes (not “telling”) and “the next thing” she knows…Chris is fighting. 

Note that Chris wasn’t bleeding, her face was. (distancing) 

The next thing I know is I'm being punched.

Note, again, the passing of time without telling us what she did…more leakage of time passing. She is concealing information about her actions right here. 

Note “I’m being punched” and not “I was punched.” 

 I gotdizzyat the sight of my blood and fell back.

Her friend’s blood didn’t cause this reaction. 
Consider “dizzy” may be an emotional reaction (not at the sight of blood of Chris) –consider that the subject may have artificially edited into this account her emotion. 

Is this her reasoning or excuse for not aiding Chris? 

 I don't rememberwhether or not I lost consciousness. 

Third use of telling us what she does not remember in an open statement. She is concealing information. 

How does one not remember whether one lost consciousness? 

Suddenlythe bus hadstopped, the police were there and I was bleeding all over

Our stuffwas stolen as well.

 I don't know yet if my nose is broken,

Note the manipulative impact---the fight was last Wednesday.  

 and I haven't been able to go back to work,butwhat upsets me the most is that VIOLENCE HAS BECOME A COMMON THING, that sometimes it's necessary to see a woman bleeding after having been punched to feel some kind of impact.


Passivity---assault is highly personal and it is intrusive. When there is an expectation, the intrusive element of surprise is gone. This was a fight. 

The language just prior to the “fight” was hers. She classified it as “jokes” that was to calm “things” in the episode down. 

She distanced herself from the language of assault. 

 I'm tired of being taken as a SEXUAL OBJECT, 

Note external statement of “10 years”--- this is the language of manipulative exploitation. 

of finding out that these situations areusual, of gay friends who were beaten up

Note the recipient or “dog whistle” language to allow others to enter into her victim status. 

 JUST BECAUSE. We have to endure verbal harassment AND CHAUVINIST, MISOGYNISTIC AND HOMOPHOBIC VIOLENCE because when you stand up for yourself s***

The subject provoked the teenagers. She was “making jokes”—please consider that the content likely insulted teenaged boys, which could have included chauvinistic or other insults. 

Consider incongruence of “standing up for self” and on “impulse” are incongruent. 

When she had ther attention as a "sexual object" things were ok. They were “guys” and they only started to act “like” hooligans. It was only after she lost their attention that it became a derogatory definition of women. 

Manipulative and exploitative personality reaches out beyond the scope of an “assault” to signal need to reach others: 

 like this happens. By the way, I am thankful to all the women and men in my life that understand that HAVING BALLS

note the language earlier as dominant and aggressive. The use of “HAVING BALLS” affirms her personality type and activity. 

MEANS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I just hope that in June, Pride Month, stuff like this can be spoken out loudly so theySTOP HAPPENING!

She does not hope for arrests, justice, safety but to be “spoken out loudly”---attention seeking behavior. 
Note that “they” stop happening---who is “they”? 

Consider she likely used abusive language to teenage boys about having “balls” ---

This does not negate what they did (punched, etc) but it shows what she was concealing and why this date was her priority. It has, thus far, obtained the attention (and money?) she sought. 

Deception Indicated about her role in the fight. It was not an unprovoked unexpected homophobic attack. 


Mike Dammann said...

Remember in addition that she wrote about "Last Wednesday" in the early morning hours of the following day (Thursday)

stevehh said...

Whist not challenging your analysis, some of the wording is typical English way of expressing things. I'm English.

I would say, I climbed the stairs. I'd say I took the front seats. I'd say heading for, never use towards. I'd probably say “came after us”, or "come after rus"

I can remember when I was younger, the upstairs front seats were a prised position on the bus, and anyone sitting there could expect'trouble',if others wanted them.

The direction of the bus might be important, as in, we were going to xxxx, a 'safe' direction where there is normally no trouble, so we didn't think too much about our behaviour, and being a safe bus didn't look to closely at the other passengers, so was unaware where people got on and off as against getting on the bus towards a violent area, where trouble can be expected, and I'd be looking for a 'safe' seat, and inspecting the new arrivals. A local would know

If sitting upstairs in the front seats, you would be facing the front, and would not be able to see anyone else on the bus. So you would hear noise, and have to turn around to see, unless they were not sitting down.

I'd consider the position of the stairs important. They are either near the front, or near the back. Near the front means that going to the middle of the bus, traps those at the rear, and being pushed back and down the stairs is a real risk. Near the front stairs means there is an available exit. If the stairs are near the back of the bus, the girls are trapped. This is not mentioned, but I'd be aware of the position of the stairs travelling on the night bus. No fear of being trapped.

When 'the attackers' got off the bus, did they push past the girls, to the stairs towards the front, or simply exit via the stairs at the back. Getting off is a 'one at a time' process, as the stairs are a bottleneck.

No mention of whether the bus was packed, or empty. A boisterous bus when it's packed, is a lot different than facing 4 rowdy characters on an empty bus.

For me, there are lots missing.

Anonymous said...

She wasn't English Steve. She was from Uruguay

Mike Dammann said...

Keep also in mind that her actual statement starts as follows:


Anonymous said...

Is there some kind of nominative determinism going on? As another commenter noted in the last thread, the name Geymonat translates almost literally to gay month. (Gey - alternative spelling of gay - and monat - the word month in German). For Geymont, from URuGAY, to be attacked in a homophobic incident during June (gay month/Pride Month) seems almost too coincidental to be true.

CeriB said...

Slightly off topic, but do we know who took the photograph, and how it got into the public domain?

I wonder whether "the next thing I know" might be to conceal who was the instigator of the physical violence? To get to "the middle of the bus" when they were sitting at the front would have required Chris to advance forward from her position - suggesting a posture of attack rather than defence.

It sounds like
1. They enjoyed putting on a show for the boys
2. The boys became more demanding of them to do particular things, and they realised maybe they weren't in control of the situation as they had thought they were.
3. The pair became verbally insulting / agressive to the boys, perhaps making emasculating comments (balls).
4. Chris went down the bus towards them, and may even have been the one to start the physical fight - certainly, she was advancing rather than retreating when it happened because of her location in the bus.
5. A person (unknown) was there to take a photograph in the immediate aftermath.

Question-was alcohol involved?
Question-is there something of the lapdance in "throwing us coins?

Anonymous said...

”Question-is there something of the lapdance in "throwing us coins?”

This is interesting. Sitting on someone’s lap, face to face, does involve some “scissoring”, doesn’t it? Maybe they were stuck in that position when the boys arrived. And maybe they treated it as a lap dance, demanding them to kiss as well while throwing coins to them?

Another thing: Given that English is Ms. Geymonat’s second language, she writes very well.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Two certified UK analysts contributed with references to local expressions.


Jase said...

As well as having at least 2 crowd funding streams set up for them, they have also become political commentators.


Anonymous said...

The phrase “throwing us coins” may also allude to a financial motive i.m.o. When Melania realized she could use the “episode“ for financial gain, she was “becoming more enthusiastic about it” so to say. She gives several hints that may induce the public to donate: ”stuff was stolen” / “maybe” her ” nose is broken” / she hasn’t “been able to go back to work”. That (i.e. provoke donations) may be the main reason “some kind of impact” was ”necessary”.


Anonymous said...

Yes, Geymonat and URuGAY seem too coincidental to be true, but she didn’t choose her own name (I assume) or where she was born. So they are probably coincidences anyway. Nevertheless, I find them very intriguing. Sometimes details in cases interlock (inter-relate?) in the most ingenious manner.


Anonymous said...

OT: Ideology and facts collide at Oberlin College.


Anonymous said...

According to MSM media reports, Ms. Geymonat is a medical student, a flight attendant for Ryanair, and a playwright. Yes. A playwright.

jap said...

wouldn't coins have finger prints

Lilstr said...

Interesting version of events in her
native Spanish interview with Montevideo Portal, at this address:


"En algún momento no sé si nos dimos un beso o un abrazo o nos agarramos las manos y ellos vinieron hacia nosotras. Se sentaron, rodeándonos, y nos decían ‘lesbianas' y hacían alusión a poses sexuales con sus manos. Nos pedían que nos besáramos para que ellos se entretuvieran", contó Melania Geymonat, una médica de 28 años de edad, en diálogo con Montevideo Portal.

"At one point I don't know if we kissed or if we hugged or if we held hands and they came towards us. They sat down, surrounded us (encircled us) and called (told) us "lesbians" and made references to sexual poses with their hands. They asked us to kiss so that they could be entertained."

Melania afirma que su primera reacción fue intentar "descontracturar" el ambiente, que les dijo que su novia no hablaba inglés y que no entendía lo que les estaban planteando. Ante la insistencia, Chris "se hizo la enferma" y Melania le pidió a los agresores que pararan, que se sentía mal. Pero no pararon.

Melania asserts that her first reaction was to try to 'relieve tension' in the atmosphere, that she told them that her girlfriend did not speak English and that she did not understand what they were asking. Faced with the insistence, Chris "played sick" and Melania asked the agressors to leave, that she was feeling ill. But they did not leave.

Lilstr said...

"Ellos siguieron, nos empezaron a tirar monedas y lo siguiente que recuerdo es ver a Chris en la mitad del bus y a al menos tres tipos pegándole. Cuando llegué al lugar, ella ya estaba bastante ensangrentada, y yo traté de sacarla. No recuerdo si a mí me pegaron porque la quise sacar a ella o porque yo pegué en defensa. Sé que en uno o dos golpes sentí que me hicieron algo y empecé a sangrar como loca", recordó.

"They continued, they started throwing coins at us and the next thing I remember is seeing Chris at the middle of the bus and at least three guys beating her. When I reached there, she was already pretty much bleeding, and I tried to get her out. I don't remember if they hit me because I was trying to get her out or because I hit in defense. I know that in one or two hits they did something to me and I started bleeding like crazy", she remembers.
Luego de golpearlas, los agresores les robaron todas sus pertenencias. "No recuerdo en qué momento paró el ómnibus ni quién llamó a la policía", confiesa Melania, quien destacó positivamente la labor de la policía londinense, que hasta ahora se comunica permanentemente y las acompañó en todo momento.

After having hit them, the aggressors stole all their belongings. "I don't remember when(at what point) the bus stopped nor who called the police", admits Melania who also praises the work of London Police, with whom she is in constant contact and has has accompanied them since (at all times).

"Lo que más me impulsó a contar la historia es la violencia hacia la mujer que percibo, no solo acá en Europa, sino también en Uruguay", aseguró. "Hoy estaba hablando con una amiga de Barcelona que montones de veces se siente mal porque hay hombres que la persiguen o la invaden y eso yo lo sentía y está bastante normalizado, pero no debería", reflexionó.[...]
"La única idea de compartirlo fue generar conciencia porque pasa muchísimo más de lo que se sabe"

"What most compelled me to tell this story is the violence against women that I perceive, not only here in Europe, but also in Uruguay. Today I was speaking with a friend from Barcelona who is uneasy because there's men who pursue(softer than stalk) or invade [her space] and this I feel too and is pretty normalized, but it shouldn't.[...]
The only reason for sharing this was to raise awareness because much more goes on than what is known."

Este viernes, Melania tiene una cita con el médico para confirmar si tiene la nariz quebrada y ver cómo prosigue el tratamiento o recibir el alta médica. Por su parte, Chris tiene una pequeña fractura en la mandíbula pero no amerita mayor tratamiento que analgésicos, hielo y comida blanda.

This Friday Melania has a doctor's appointment to confirm if her nose is broken and to see how to continue the treatment or receive a medical discharge. On her end, Chris sustained a small fracture to the jaw but does not need any more treatment than analgesics, ice and soft food.

Anonymous said...

One of the alleged 'aggressors' is Spanish. Could it have been a staged attack, similar to the Jussie Smollet incident, designed to raise awareness and start a conversation?

Anonymous said...

Scissoring is a joke. Lesbians do not actual do the act of scissoring. This may surprise you, but what the actors in porn do is often far removed from reality. This is ridiculous.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Cadaver dogs smell scent in area where DeOrr Kunz disappeared

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (KIFI/KIDK) - A private investigator from North Carolina said his cadaver dogs made a hit while searching around the campground where DeOrr Kunz Jr. disappeared nearly 4 years ago.

David Marshburn, of Search For Me Foundation, said he brought his two dogs the week of June 8th to the Timber Creek Campground near Leadore.

Marshburn went to the campground after he was contacted by a Facebook group searching for answers in DeOrr's disappearance.

Marshburn said one of his dogs went to the water and all of a sudden dashed to a spot in the water.

"Our oldest dog, Caz, the way he alerts, he lays down. He just lays down on the spot. Now it can be a foot over, a foot here, or a foot in front, but he lays on the strongest scent, or at it," said Marshburn.

Marshburn said the Sheriff's office brought another dog the next day. It also hit on the same spot. He says it could be DeOrr or it could be an old Indian Grave. But he believes there is something in the ground there.

Marshburn said the spot is in a difficult place to retrieve a body. "The environmental conditions are horrible. You're sifting through mud and muck, you're nasty and you got mosquitoes, it's just a horrible environment. It would be the worst scenario you could think of as far as an area to try and find anything really," said Marshburn.

Lemhi County Sheriff Steve Penner is closing off the campground and the surrounding area to the public this Friday through Monday. He said in a media release Thursday the closure is part of what has become an annual search effort since DeOrr Kunz's disappearance.

Penner said the search was part of his office's due diligence in the ongoing investigation. He cautions about speculation or unverified facts. He said all information on the investigation will come through professional media outlets.

DeOrr was last seen on July 10, 2015. He was camping with his parents, grandfather and a family friend.


Donna said...

Can someone tell me if this is a concerning statement?

It is in the context of someone telling a guy they may not be able to get together with him when he would like.

“I may cry. I’m very ugly when I cry, so I wouldn’t recommend it.”

The “it” refers to deciding not to meet him when he wants.

I need input. I am worried about the individual who he is trying to see.

Hey Jude said...

OT: DeOrr Sr (Vernal) - video, 27 June, East Idaho News:


Hey Jude said...

OT : Donna

I’m not sure who is speaking to whom - is it the guy who is going to cry because the person may not be able to meet him, or is it the person saying to the guy “I may cry....” as a reason not to meet with him?

Donna said...

Hey Jude, it is what the guy wrote to the girl.

What do you think?

He also wrote in a previous email “I strongly believe blank & blank (cousins) need to have a lifelong friendship. Stepping off soapbox...maybe it is my fear & insecurity talking.

We should all be able to fit in a single car. Perhaps for a road trip”

(I have pulled these statements out bc I find them concerning.
Please give input.

Donna said...

Info about the guy: Very bad temper, abused wife for 25 yrs, is now divorced, was put into isolation at work for being nasty to all co-workers, was trying to make a baby in a petri dish with 50 yr old woman, is now single. claims to have intractable throat pain & twisted back from slipping one time yrs ago

Willow said...

Donna. Why do you think you need SA to find out if this person is to worry about?
Listen to your own words.

How come you cannot simply stay away from this person? What makes you think of needing further input from outside to motivate no contact with this person? You seem to have all relevant infrmation already.

History repeats itself. The way a person has behaved in the past predicts how he behaves in the future.

Donna said...

I am not involved with this person & never have been. He is related to someone I know! I am wondering if his WORDS seem concerning bc I am WORRIED about what is behind his words!!! I am worried about what he is thinking/planning re: my friend! Thats why Im asking for analysis!!!

Are his words concerning (potential for violence?)?

John Mc Gowan said...

Kaaryn Gough (Statement Analysts) hasn't been been on here for awhile i hope she's doing well.

Willow said...

Donna, the potential for vilence, the ominous warning, is in the form of the statement, mostly, I think.

“I may cry. I’m very ugly when I cry, so I wouldn’t recommend it.”

The writer is brief, laconic, which contributes to the strength of the message.

He uses absurdity as a way to confuse (and avoid responsibility).
If we take the words and senteces at the face value, "crying", being "ugly", not "recommending" something cannot be too terrorizing. Can it?
Still, the statemet is capable of instilling fear in the recipient who knows the background and the context.
This is effective use of language by the writer as most recipients don't want to see the undercurrent of violence in persons that they are in relations with. The oppressor knows this.

“I may cry. I’m very ugly when I cry," so I wouldn’t recommend it.”

He strongly owns the threat of ugly consequences for insubordination in the statement saying "I" at the beginning of the sentences.
There's repetition of "I", four times.

The form is gangster-movie -intimidation, black comedy style.
In the context of previous violence the recpient has all the more reason to believe the threat is real.

He is serious about the threat.

His line of action is premeditated, rehearsed and likely proven successful.

Anonymous said...

Take a load off. It's vacation season.

Donna said...

Willow, Thanks so much...yes you are right, it is tense language....threatening, but yet trying to throw the recipient of balance by confusing, thinking he couldn’t be serious could he?
VERY interesting about the strength of the statement with him using “I” four times...wow! I hadnt noted that but instinctively felt the threat was serious.

I also noted gangster-type language in the “we should all be able to fit into a single car....perhaps for a short road trip”—that statement was unprompted...

Scary stuff, really.

She texted him today that she will not be meeting him. I will provide his response if he sends one to her. Thank you for helping!!! It is scary—the guy is 6 feet 6 inches tall & looks like Frankenstein!

Hey Jude said...

It was Frankenstein well, more accurately, his abandoned monster, who said, “If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear.”

Even so, he is more loveable than his heartless creator, methinks.

Would not meet with that guy for the reasons others have given.

Donna said...

Interestimg Hey Jude.

It took my years to figure out Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein character until it hit me in one of the few epiphanies I’ve had. The Frankenstein monster is the embodiment of the fractured psyche found in BPD. The pieces of the psyche shattered, beyond repair; Yet, “Frankenstein’s creator tries to stitch the pieces back together, “animating” them again. He tries to do the impossible & fails. The creature Frankenstein is the embodiment of the resultant malformed psyche & the repugnance it cause, the loneliness, rage & despair & isolation from humanity that it engenders in Frankenstein. I don’t know if his “creator” represents parents or God. My best guess is probably both.

The stalker guy has been firmly told “no”. I do not know if he has responded.

Maddie said...

There is no driver? My son is gay and I know how hateful people can be.

Hey Jude said...

OT : I listened to the audiobook recently and still think, mostly, it’s just a great horror story. I much preferred the monster to his creator, especially during the part where he takes up residence in the hovel adjoining the cottage. It’s so sad as he learns language and becomes so eloquent a monster.

Victor is the real monster for creating him.

I like your interpretation, but I think the repugnance is due primarily to the monster’s physical appearance, which repugnance results in his malformed psyche - the tragedy is that his mind develops so that he might have been a fine experiment had his body been made to match - instead he remained monstrous, while his intellect increased, so it was as though he was created to suffer. Victor did such a rubbish job and then would not take responsibility for what he had created - he’d have been struck off these days. What did he expect would come from setting out to fashion a being, and making him so hideous? I liked that he had to live with his terrible secret, though - that was good.

Maddie said...

Dig it up.

frommindtomatter said...


Anyone have any opinions on this statement?

“I’m probably one of the few people who hasn`t betrayed you.”

“Probably” weakens the statement, but does it speak to “one of the few people” as to say there are probably only a few people who have not betrayed you and I am one of them. Or does it speak to “betrayal” itself in which case it would cast doubt on the subjects belief in their own words.


Hey Jude said...

OT - From the ‘probably’ I think the speaker doesn’t know how few or many people might have betrayed the person, but he’s still,okay with making the suggestion that only a few have not. I wouldn’t be too confident in the person’s claim not to have betrayed the other, as he or she allows for doubt with the ‘probably’.

What’s the context - is he or she instigating the conversation, or defending him/herself from an accusation, or is it something else?

As a conversational piece, I’d wonder what would motivate the speaker to say such a thing.

If as a response to an accusation, I’d wonder if it had been accompanied by a reliable denial.

‘I’ is as far away as possible from ‘you’ in the sentence.

Ned said...


That statement indicates that the person HAS betrayed you!
The person seems like they are trying to sound like “oh Im so awesome look at all Ive done for you, when everyone else has betrayed you...you owe me so much gratitude and loyalty!”

There is a saying “Don’t sit down and eat with the person who brags about feeding you.”

Think about it.

Kat said...

Trying to convince of trustworthiness/loyalty.

Comparable to the statement : “Im a good mother.”

Donna said...

Hey Jude,

I see Frankenstein's creator as the same as a narc/psychopath parent. In pretty much every way. Oh yes, I know Frankenstein's mind was intact as you say....his INTELLECT was in tact, however his psyche was not. It is the same as a narc/parent who totally traumatizes their child, shatter his or her psyche, then expects them to "live" as well as function and perform academically. For example, when he educates Frankenstein, gives him an education, books to read....why??? To make him even more lonely. To make him even more enslaved to his creator. Had he not become educated etc he perhaps would not have been so self-aware.
I don't enjoy FRankenstein as a horror story because I just find him so lonely...lonelier even than Grendal from Beowulf. Grendal I think was not aware that he was a "monster".

Donna said...

The FRankenstein monster embodies these concepts...he is not a representation of them. HIs outer body represents his damaged psyche imho. And of course causes it, but still. Victor grows Frankenstein's intellect for reasons that seem purely selfish if I remember correctly. Also, is not his creation of Frankenstein senseless? Like he does it "just for the hell of it"??? It's a very sad story.

I think Mary Shelly's parents had a very bizarre relationship and I am wondering if she was kind of psychologically damaged? She wrote that story when she was 17 yrs old--clearly she had a very advanced intellect much like Frankenstein.

Anonymous said...

Donna you too have an intellect much like Frankenstein.

Donna said...

Actually no. I’m just smart & very empathic, moreso than most. I have empathy that can shift into telepathy. Have you ever sat on a park bench watcching people strolling by, several pass...and then one young woman, late 20’s and inside your mind you are seeing her weeping uncontrollably, inconsollably? You can’t understand why you are seeing this in your head, you don’t tell your friend who is sitting next to you. But then after the woman passes by, your friend leans into you & says “I know that lady. She lived underneath me & my mother when I was 19. Her baby drowned in their bathtub.

And you realize, wow these “flashes” I have had all my life actually mean something?
My real Dad told me it is a kind of intelligence & that it is hard to deal with (?)
I guess it is extreme empathy?
I don’t know.

It’s happened to me also when touching certain objects...I can see people, see things, know things....

Peter would think it is bull, but is real.

Donna said...

My real Dad said he wished he could have helped me deal with it. I wonder what he would have said?

Donna said...

Sometimes, it’s too much.

Even on FB sometimes....I can tell from someone’s eyes, their posture what has happened to them in their life...flashes, an overwhelmimg “knowing”...trauma that has happened to them.

Ive also seem ghosts & know info about them...terrifying.

Donna said...

It’s weird, even with ghosts, it’s like a second sight where I can just “see” into them.

frommindtomatter said...

Hey Jude said...

What’s the context - is he or she instigating the conversation, or defending him/herself from an accusation, or is it something else?

Thanks for the input.The context is a conversation between two people in a relationship where one person has spoken of times in their life where they have been betrayed by those who were close to them. They cast doubt on the other person’s loyalty to them in the past which prompts the other to respond:

“I’m probably one of the few people who hasn`t betrayed you.”

If “probably” is used as a qualifier it is connected to either “one of the few people” or “betrayed” or both? How to differentiate between is what I want to understand.

We could expect the shortest sentence to be some form of the examples below:

“I`m one of the few people who hasn’t betrayed you” - shows the speaker has some knowledge about the others experience of betrayal.

“I`m one of the people who hasn’t betrayed you” – Makes a strong statement

I want to understand why the speaker used “probably” in their statement so would welcome any input on that. I cannot see why it is there other than an unconscious weakening of words by the speaker but I am not sure if it could speak/connect to “one of the few people” in some way.


Anonymous said...


Adrian, maybe the second person said “probably” because he/she doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of the betrayals alleged by the first person but assumes they probably happened (because why would the first person lie about it). In this scenario “probably” is another way of saying “I cannot be entirely sure all the betrayal you allege really happened but if you say so then I am one of the few people (…)”.

Another possibility is that the second person knows (virtually) all the people that were/are close to the first person and suspects (but is not entirely sure) that most of them betrayed the first person. In that case, however, the fact that the second person hasn’t shared that suspicion with the first person would also be a sort of betrayal.

Or, as Hey Jude wrote, the second person allows for doubt regarding his/her lack of betrayal.

I wonder why the second person says “one of the few people” though. Is it because the first person said “most of the people” close to him/her betrayed him/her? In that case it would make sense to me. Otherwise, could it mean a weakening of the statement because he/she psychologically hides in a group of people because he/she feels uncomfortable saying (plainly) ”I didn't(or: have never) betrayed you”?


Hey Jude said...

I don’t know, Adrian - it can be read either way.

Autumn, I wonder about ‘the few’, too - they are unnecessary words, negative in context.

Could that be understood as ‘feeding someone’s paranoia’?

Or, maybe, a response spoken in hurt or anger? - he or she didn’t have to say it, but he/she did.

frommindtomatter said...


Thanks Autumn and hey Jude for the input I appreciate it. I think what you both said regarding "one of the few" is key here. That it is said suggests the second speaker has some knowledge of the betrayals experienced by the first speaker. From this knowledge they must have drawn a conclusion that the first speaker feels they have been let down/betrayed to such a degree that it suggests there is few people who they can trust.

Here is something interesting. My wife and I went out for something to eat this evening and as we were talking about how our days had gone my wife (a teaching assistant in a school) said "I probably have paint all over me" and rolled her sleeves up and looked at her arms and hands looking to see if there was any. She had been working with paint that day and after some looking found some traces of it. As we had gone straight out after work she hadn't had a proper wash. As I had been thinking about the use of the word "probably" her use of it stood out causing me to analyse it.

My wife used "probably" because she was not sure so could not fully commit to her words, but she must have had enough knowledge to realise it was highly likely there would be traces of paint on her.

I think this is how "probably" could be linked to "one of the few" in the original statement. If we believe the second speakers words then we must consider that they had enough knowledge to make the assumption that the first speaker feels there are only a few people who have not betrayed them, even if it had not been directly stated. From this assumption the second speaker is saying they have not betrayed the first speaker and they are grouping themselves with "the few". They are not certain about "the few" so the word "probably" has crept into their language.


Joe said...

Does "I am probably one of the few people" mean the same thing as "I am one of the, probably few, people"?

Hey Jude said...

OT - Donna - The monster educated himself, largely by observing and listening to the family in the cottage - I forget how he learned to read, only that he found a bag of books which had been left somewhere by Victor. Victor didn’t trouble to give him even a name, so I doubt he contributed much else past his initial formation - I forget their encounters already, but I think it was more the monster who spoke and Victor who listened to his life. It is interesting how it is the monster who is usually called Frankenstein, rather than Victor - it’s like saying most people think he should have a name, even if Victor didn’t. I have forgotten most of it already.

Hey Jude said...

Joe - people mean exactly what they say.

Hey Jude said...

Betrayal doesn’t have to mean the same thing to everyone - maybe the one doesn’t consider himself to have betrayed the other, but also suspects that the other might think differently?

I think there’s not enough of the conversation to be able to understand it - I don’t then.

Joe said...

Hey Jude @ 8:15 - I disagree. Perhaps people mean exactly what they think they are saying, but as you point out, words mean different things to different people. People can be mistaken in their use of grammar, syntax, semantics, and definitions of words. If you are mistaken about the definition of a word, how can you possibly say what you mean? Eg. If you think the word "inflammable" means not flammable, and you use it in a sentence such as "this material is inflammable" do you mean exactly what you say?

Anonymous said...

OT: "probably"

Another possibility: maybe person 2 isn't entirely sure what person 1's definition of betrayal is. Person 2 may - for instance - sense that person 1 has high standards and assumes betrayal quickly. Person 2 thinks he/she probably met these high standards but isn't 100% sure (hence "probably").


frommindtomatter said...


Whatever person one has said has prompted a response from person two. The main message person two wishes to impart is that “I haven’t betrayed you”. We don’t know what kind of specific “betrayal” is being spoken of but we know person two wishes to address it. At this point we would expect person two to state:

“I have not betrayed you” – or something similar which is a strong statement, but it is not said.

We have extra information which person two feels the need to include, “probably one of the few people”. In order for them to include those words in their statement we know they must have enough knowledge to have made that deduction. They are not certain about how many “the few” is as if they were we would expect:

“I`m one of the few people who hasn’t betrayed you” – Which tells us they know they are “one of the few”

Whatever knowledge they have has led them to believe that there is only “a few” but because they cannot be certain it has caused “probably” to enter their language and we are left with:

“I’m [probably] one of the few people who hasn`t betrayed you.”

Even without more context we know the subject wishes to convey a message with their words. If they were being deceptive would we not expect statements such as:

“I would never betray you” or “I could never betray you”

These statements would be weak denials whereas the original speaks of “hasn’t” (past tense “have not”)

It is an interesting statement to analyse and if it had been as simple as “I have probably not betrayed you” we could easily see the speaker has weakness related to the context of betrayal. They would be showing they weren’t sure how person one defines betrayal.

The sentence structure seems to point to “probably” being used to qualify “one of the few”

“I’m [probably one of the few people] who hasn`t betrayed you.”

Peter please can you offer your thoughts on what can be deducted from this limited statement.


John Mc Gowan said...

I personally think it is difficult to come to a conclusion given we don't know the context.

Who introduced the word "Betray"? If it is person one, is person two entering into their language, for example.

Have you "betrayed" me?

A- “I’m probably one of the few people who hasn't "betrayed" you. (this is weak. Its qualified [probably] and if using person ones words it is weaker still)

A short answer "No" (the shortest sentence is the best although it is only one word) is a very strong answer, on it's form it is more than likely true. It stands alone without the need to bolster.

What is their subjective interpretation of "betray"?

What is the accusation if one at all.
Who introduced "betray"

frommindtomatter said...


Person one has a history of being a victim of betrayal in close relationships (abandonment by mother, abandonment by spouse in the past, I don’t know if there is more). They have concerns their current partner has betrayed them in their relationship at some point in the past. I have been told that no accusations were made during the conversation which the statement is taken from but person one spoke of their history of betrayal and used the word “betrayal” in the conversation. Person two is aware of persons ones doubts about them and offered the statement during the conversation.

“I’m probably one of the few people who hasn`t betrayed you.”

Person two must have some knowledge of person ones history and by their words shows a need to convince person one they have not betrayed them. In this context person two by deduction could introduce “one of the few people” into their statement.

Of course the statement could be broken down and in persons twos mind it would look like:
“They are a few people who haven’t betrayed person one; I am probably one of them.”

If taken like that then it becomes very weak because we would expect:

“I’m one of the few people who hasn`t betrayed you.” – or something similar in strength

Of course persons twos idea of what betrayal is would have an impact on their words and could also allow for weakness with the use of “probably”. They may have done something which they are not sure would be classed as betrayal. If person ones words spoke of betrayal in relation to abandonment then person two may have done "something" but as they have not abandoned person one, they can [probably] be “one of the few people who hasn’t betrayed” them by that definition.

I will try to get more context to the whole thing.


Hey Jude said...

Joe, yes, you would mean what you said because you believed your own word definition, but to everyone who knew what ‘inflammable’ means, it would be an erroneous statement. You could believe your mistake and so give a misleading impression, but it would be an unknowing mistake until such time as you learned the correct meaning of ‘inflammable’.

The meaning of some words are hard to misunderstand - ‘probably’ is one such word - it only suggests likelihood, whilst also allowing for other possibilities. The speaker is saying he or she is probably one of the few who hasn’t betrayed the person. If he or she did not believe himself to have betrayed the other, wouldn’t the ‘probably’ be superfluous?

“I haven’t betrayed you” would be reassuring, but he/she does not choose to say that.

I agree, there could be doubt in the speaker’s mind as to what the other classifies as betrayal - one might be speaking in terms of abandonment, or breaking confidences - the other might be thinking about the time he got annoyed and described the other to a third party as a selfish bore, or whatever.

I wonder was the speaker angry, to have said what he did - it sounds mean, to have said “the few”? Why say it?

Without “the few” he or she is just “probably one of the people who hasn’t betrayed you”, which doesn’t inspire confidence.

I agree, there isn’t enough. So far, if I was the one who felt betrayed, I might not be confiding in the speaker again, on account of the unnecessary “few”. It’s negatively affirming, and confirms the other in their view of all but a few, so it would have to niggle that it was said - but then, the speaker might be long-suffering, and retaliating to a difficult person who has just had a go at him or her, even if there was no direct accusation. One thing is clear, which is that the statement invites doubt - I’d be thinking, was that intended to reinforce my doubts about him/her? Why not a simple and straightforward, “I haven’t betrayed you?”

Hey Jude said...

The speaker most likely would, through the conversation, have gained a pretty good understanding of what the other classifies as betrayal, and he or she would, presumably - though we shouldn’r presume or assume anything - have his personal standard, which may or may not be the same.

Where does the ‘probably’ come from?

Anonymous said...


On further thought, "probably" in that sentence i.m.o. only makes sense if it relates to "one of the few". To say "I probably haven't betrayed you" doesn't make sense. You either betrayed someone or you haven't. And you know whether you have or haven't. I take back my suggestion that person 2 may have added "probably" because he/she's not sure he/she met person 1's standard of non-betrayal. Most people make statements based on their own interpretations of words/concepts.

I don't necessarily see "one of the few" as a negative addition to the sentence. The conversation seems to have been about betrayal of person 1 by very close relationships (a mother and a former spouse). Most people only have relatively few relationships that are that close during their lives. Therefore, person 2 may have meant: “You were already betrayed by two of the most important persons in your life. You probably only had a few other people in your life who were equally close/important to you and who didn’t betray you and I’m one of them. In this interpretation, “one of the few” also has a hint of empathy. As in: poor you, some of the most important people in your life betrayed you and there probably weren’t that many others who compensated for that but, rest assured, I’m one of those who haven’t betrayed you.

However, everything depends on the circumstances. An important circumstance is that person 2 is aware that person 1 has doubts about person 2’s trustworthiness (past betrayal). For that reason, I would also (like Hey Jude) have expected person 2 to give a more straightforward denial. But indeed: maybe person 2 felt somewhat defensive because he/she perceived person 1’s confessions as (repeated?) allusions to person 2’s possible betrayal and decided to sting back by saying (implying): “It seems there aren’t that many left who didn’t betray you, be glad I’m one of them”.


Anonymous said...

Oh Jesus. Give context or how do you expect meaningful analysis?!

Anonymous said...

Also, those pictures are fake. That's not what blood looks like, nor where is would be.

Anonymous said...

Peter, here's a great one I'd love for you to analyze. Two contradictory statements, both in writing. And both pretty fascinating and ripe for analysis.

(Full disclosure, I am on Team Trump and believe him to be a bulwark against increasingly insane America-hating progressives. I also do not consider him a sexual assaulter.)

In the first statement, published in a book for Pete's sake!, a woman accuses Trump of raping her 25 years ago, but does so in giggly, flirty, fond terms, along with a lot of pre-emptive countering of possible reader objections.

"I am surprised at how good-looking he is....he looks prettier than ever."

"But even if it had been captured on tape, depending on the position of the camera, the struggle might simply have read as “sexy.” The speculation is moot, anyway: The department store has confirmed that it no longer has tapes from that time."

In the second statement, Trump denies the allegations, but in a "deception-indicated" non-denial denial.

My take is that these two lovebirds may have copulated, and it may have even been a bit hasty or rough, but that the rape allegation is a stretch.

Anyway, I'd love to get your take on this.

First statement: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html (Scroll down about halfway to get to the Trump part.)

Second statement, from Trump:

"Regarding the “story” by E. Jean Carroll, claiming she once encountered me at Bergdorf Goodman 23 years ago. I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book—that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.

Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda—like Julie Swetnick who falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It’s just as bad for people to believe it, particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a dying publication to try to prop itself up by peddling fake news—it’s an epidemic.

Ms. Carroll & New York Magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video? No reports? No sales attendants around?? I would like to thank Bergdorf Goodman for confirming they have no video footage of any such incident, because it never happened.

False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.

If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or New York Magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should know what’s really going on. It is a disgrace and people should pay dearly for such false accusations."

What do you think?

Jake said...

I wish Presiden Trump had issued a reliable denial.

frommindtomatter said...


Autumn said

“On further thought, "probably" in that sentence i.m.o. only makes sense if it relates to "one of the few". To say "I probably haven't betrayed you" doesn't make sense. You either betrayed someone or you haven't.”

Hi Autumn that is the conclusion I came to as well. At first look the statement seems weak but on a deeper level seeing that “probably” is connected to “one of the few” the focus moves off “betrayal”. For me personally I found it a good exercise to examine the structure and function of the statement even with limited context it is amazing what can be deduced.

If someone said to their spouse or partner:

“I will probably miss you next week when your away”

It would on the surface seem like a weak statement but we would see that the speaker is being honest. In their mind they believe they will miss the person but because they have not experienced the event they cannot commit to saying “I will miss you”. That could tell us that this was the first time they have been away from each other and because the speaker does not have experience/proof in their mind that they will miss them the qualifier “probably” enters the language.

So what most people would see in the statement is that it is a terrible thing to say, as they expect to hear something stronger where in fact it is a very genuine and honest statement. We could also factor in that the person had a need to say this to their partner which speaks volumes in itself.


C5H11ONO said...

I know you have taught us about these types of statements.😉
“President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,” the statement read.

Col said...

OT It has been 4 years since DeOrr Kunz went missing from Timber Creek Campground near Leadore.


Lalaland said...

OT Delphi case: someone needs to give opinion on police superintendant's speech...as well as his brief appearance on Dr Phil.

I am seeing enormous areas of linguistic sensitivity.

I will relay any opinions on the superintendant's linguistics to John Kelly (profiler).

Lalaland said...

Here are the 2 videos I need looked at

1) Police superintendant at press conference on Delphi murders (I am asking for body languge experts to also chime in.)


2) Police superintendant brief appearance on dr phil (4 min video) where he says "there are many reasons not to trust us


John Kelly is trying very hard to crack this case. I have not said anything to him yet about my suspicions about the police superintedant. I am seeking the top analysts here to give insight first. My personal opinion is that there are strong linguistic indicators of nervousness, deception, and suspicious body language.

I am interested in hearing others' opinions.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

lalaland said...

Sorry, THIS is the Dr Phil clip (3 min clip) that I find incredibly concerning. Pay careful attention to the superintedant's body language as well.


Leigh said...

OT Delphi Murders YouTube Transcript for those that want to analyze Doug Carter's Statement

I gotta say to the Delphi community how grateful I am. You, um, you inspire people you don’t even understand, when you don’t even understand why. Uh, information’s being released today is the result of literally thousands and thousands of hours of extraordinary investigative efforts by Delphi, Carol County, the FBI, The Indiana State Police, and countless other agencies. This community surrounded us some 26 months ago and you did everything you could to support us but most importantly, you surrounded the family of these two little girls. Gosh, I’ll never forget it. After you hear what we’re going to release today, I’m going to ask for your continued support. Your continued understanding. Your empathy and compassion, ah, as - as we move forward, ah to find out who did this - and we will. We’re seeking the public's help to identify the driver of a vehicle that was parked at the old CPSDCS Welfare building in the city of Delphi that was abandoned on the east side of County Road 300 North next to the Hoosier Heartland Highway between the hours of noon to 5 on February 14th, 2017. If you were parked there or know who was parked there please contact the officers at the command post at the Delphi City Building. We are releasing additional portions of the audio recording from that day. Please keep in mind the person talking is one person, and is the person on the bridge with the girls. This is not two different people speaking. Please listen to it very very carefully. We’re also releasing video recovered from Libby’s phone. This video has never before been previously released. The video shows a suspect walking on the bridge. When you see the video, watch the su-, watch the person’s mannerisms as they walk. Watch the mannerisms as he walks. Do you recognize the mannerisms as being someone that you might know? Remember, he is walking on the former railroad bridge. Because of the deteriorated condition of the bridge, the suspect is not walking naturally due to the spacing between the ties. During the course of this investigation, we have concluded the first sketch released will become secondary as of today. The result of the new information and intelligence over time leads us to believe the sketch, which you will see shortly, is the person responsible for the murders of these two little girls. We also believe this person is from Delphi currently, or has previously lived here, visits Delphi on a regular basis or works here.


Leigh said...

OT Delphi Murders YouTube Transcript for those that want to analyze Doug Carter's Statement


We believe this person is currently between the age range of 18 and 40 but might appear younger than his true age. Di- directly to the killer who may be in this room: we believe you are hiding in plain sight. For more than two years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy, but we have. We likely have interviewed you or someone close to you. We know that this is about power to you and you want to know what we know and one day, you will. A question to you: what will those closest to you think of when they find out that you brutally murdered two little girls, two children? Only a coward would do such a thing. We are confident you have told someone what you have done or at the very least they know because of how different you are since the murders. We try so hard to understand how a person could do something like this, to two childre-, to two children. I recently watched a movie called “The Shack” and there's also a book that talks so well about evil, about death, and about eternity. To the murderer: I believe you have just a little bit of a conscience left. And, I can assure you that how you left them in that woods is not - is not what they are experiencing today. To the family: I hope that you all will give them some time because we are going to be asking that there's no media inquiry or no media response for at least the next two weeks. And, I hope you’ll understand why. The family found out about this - about this - information this morning. I just want the family to know that when I take my last breath on this earth, I’ll be thinking of them. There’s going to be a tremendous amount of questions, I know that. I know that. Um, never in my career have I stood in front of something like this. Please, be - be patient with us. Please. Uh, we’re just beginning. We are - we are just now beginning. And I can tell you on behalf of the sheriff and the police chief, so many other partners, um, that have stood with us over this period of time, that we will not stop. ---Doug Carter, ISP Superintendent, Delphi IN April, 22, 2019


Leigh said...

OT Delphi Murders D Phil Transcript for those that want to analyze Doug Carter's Statements


Dr Phil: Now, Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter, uh, has been talking to us here and my question, uh, for Doug, is there anything that I haven’t talked about or we haven’t discussed that the public needs to know that can help them in helping you guys solve this crime?

Doug Carter: I think to your audience, not just here Dr. Phil, but around the world, um, this is anywhere America. And, these families in that community are absolutely extraordinary. And to see what human beings do when, when, others are struggling has been the, the highlight of my lifetime. And, what I need for people to do in America is trust who we are and I ask that you please do that. There’s lots of reasons not to, and I understand that. But, to trust who we are because of you, as you have so well articulated, somebody talked to this killer yesterday. And, um, one day I hope that, that we can all look in the eyes of Abby and Libby and, and uh, they can say thank you for what you did. But, more importantly, more importantly, um, that our world’s a better place. And, that, that, that, that’s my hope, that’s my hope and that’s what I’m imploring and begging for folks to do.

Dr. Phil: Yeah…

Doug Carter: Just to sit here with you is just uh, uh, the highest of honors.

*This was his portion of the interview. Doug Carter has a pattern of repeating phrases when he speaks. The pace and phrasing of his speech are akin to Christopher Walken.


Kerry said...

Leigh, Thanks so much for transcribing!!!

In the Dr Phil clip, he does not answer Phil’s question about what could help people find the killer.
He talks in circles, avoids answering the question & says there are many reasons NOT to trust us.”

He does not want the killer caught & acknowledges he shouldn’t be trusted!


Michael said...

I bet the cop did it.

Look at his body language at press conference.

So so nervous.

Kerry said...

And, what I need for people to do in America is TRUST WHO WE ARE and I ask that you please do that. There’s lots of reasons not to, and I understand that. But, to trust who we are BECAUSE of you, as you have so well articulated, somebody talked to THIS killer yesterday. And, um, one day I hope that, that we can all look in the eyes of Abby and Libby


His reason he asks they trust anyway: “because of you”

“THIS killer” (the killer is close to him)

“Look in the eyes of Abby and Libby”

Very up close and personal: Did he look in their eyes before?

He mentions when he “draws his last breath” he will be “thinking if Abby and Libby”

Did he look them in the eyes as they drew their last breath?

Michael said...

The reference to “The Shack” is retarded.

So cheesy & nongenuine

Like the killer would care?

michael said...

It’s such a fake appeal to the killer.

david la said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brigid said...

Peter please!! Since you’re analyzing the mess in the UK please check out David Lammy the race baiting ignoramus who has been writing fake hate letters to himself.


Brigid said...

He’s projecting his self hate onto paper and sending it to himself. He’s a low IQ moron. He hates being a dumb black man and it kills him that he can never be intelligent or white so he directs this hate for himself at white people and we get these announcements of hate mail.

What a bafflon.

david la said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hey Peter, can you do an analysis of the latest interviews in the Deorr Kunz case? It's not a complete transcript but there are great quotes in the article. https://www.ktvb.com/mobile/article/news/investigations/ktvb-exclusive-the-last-people-to-see-deorr-kunz-jr-alive-talk-about-what-happened-to-the-missing-toddler/277-52262e4f-c39c-44b9-9c4c-518a0353a62b?fbclid=IwAR1a9B0Yegzm5mrd4pMa8cs1FHpKn4IK9dtC73cOCqw5avdiKdlolpeTwUA

Col said...

Anon@1:14 - have you read this interview with Jessica's mother? I see some linguistic indicators which suggest that Bob Walton (Deoor's great grandfather) is about to be accused of DeOrrs disappearance, now that he is deceased. What do you think?

CLEGG: I want closure so baby for baby DeOrr. If he isn’t with us anymore, I would like him properly laid to rest. I would like to know not necessarily what happened, but I just want the closure of it.

If we have him we get closure but there’s another chapter of this. I’m not ready for that chapter because this little boy didn’t do anything to anybody. We loved his smile and his laugh brought so much joy to us. There’s nothing this little boy could have done to deserve anything that could have happened to him.

If it does come out that somebody has to be prosecuted, the whole thought of having to sit in a courtroom and listen to what happened step by step is way more than, I think, we’ve been through in four years.


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

(b)DNA analysis has confirmed that remains found at a trash incinerator belong to a missing 2-year-old boy, Virginia police said.

Noah Tomlin was reported missing in Hampton last month by his mother. Julia Tomlin, 34, was arrested on child neglect charges as cops searched for Noah and expressed fears he was dead.

The DNA testing established that the boy’s remains were found July 3 at the Hampton NASA Steam Plant, Hampton Police spokesman Reggis Williams said Saturday.

“The Hampton Police Division will continue to collaborate with the Hampton Commonwealth Attorney’s Office to ensure this case transitions to the prosecution phase successfully,” he said.

Cops said Tomlin told them that the last time she saw Noah was when she put him to bed on June 24 at 1 a.m.

Tomlin was jailed for five months in 2010 after pleading guilty to charges accusing her of severely burning her baby daughter on a hot kitchen stove.


Yet again another faked abduction from their bedroom/home.
Yet again another faked abduction where this has been past contact from CPS and police regarding neglect and abuse of a child.

Why the hell don't they simply remove the child(ren) from parental care and put them up for fostering and/or adoption.

It would save a multitude of childrens lives and prevent further abuse of all kinds and neglect.

In cases like this it is not if a child will get killed (faked abduction) or maimed for life, it is a case of when.
That she burned another child on a hot hob should have been enough to remove her children permanently.
Sadly a child had to die before anything was done.

Habundia said...


"For Casey Anthony, July 15 isn’t really a notable day. “Everything was already in motion for Casey by July 15,” says the insider. “There are other days that mean a lot to her, but today isn’t one of them. She’s just moving forward.”

Those close to them are just as sick as she is.....how can you be close to this kind of evil?

Anonymous said...

Col, I kinda think they are going to blame Isaac. The new PI is pretty convinced he did it.

Puhleeeze! said...

I cant believe how retarded the show Intervention is, especially the Intervvention part....these families created the addict bc they are all fuckin crazy!

anon said...

I want to see them do a Krockodile intervention!

frommindtomatter said...


Baby DeOrr case.

Isaac Reinwand interviewed in below clip: 4 mins 50 secs point in clip

Isaac Reinwand was one of the four people who were at the campsite allegedly with baby DeOrr. What can we discern from his words.

Reporter: You`re the one that can say whether or not DeOrr, baby DeOrr was at that campground.

IR: As far, as far as [I know] to [my knowledge] and, [he was there].

This is a very weak statement in terms of confirming whether baby DeOrr was or was not at the campground. Isaacs words are based on his “knowledge”.

He tells us that his knowledge is limited; it only goes “as far” (reference to distance), which tells us it does not go all the way. It is the limitation of his knowledge which stops him giving a definitive answer to the question. Knowledge is information which may or may not be reliable depending on how it is acquired. They say seeing is believing and if we have not seen/witnessed something with our own eyes then any information we receive is only as reliable as those who impart it on us.

Let me give a hypothetical example of someone being questioned about the theft of their vehicle. I will incorporate Isaac's words into the answer.

Police: Can you confirm whether or not the vehicle was in the garage prior to it being stolen?

Subject: As far, as far as [I know] to [my knowledge] and, [it was there].

Why can the subject not give a definitive answer? We expect to hear “yes, it was there” if the subject had last seen the car in the garage prior to it being stolen. When the subject speaks to “my knowledge” we see it shows weakness in their statement. It tells us that the subjects “knowledge” has led them to believe the vehicle was in the garage. It becomes apparent that their knowledge is not from seeing the vehicle in the garage but based on other information. Perhaps a family member has told them they parked it in the garage. The subject cannot speak of seeing the car in the garage so is forced to say “to my knowledge” (to the information I have available).

Isaac Reinwands statement shows he is working from information which is not first-hand. This information has led him to believe baby DeOrr was at the campsite. It shows us the Isaac had not seen baby DeOrr with his own eyes. If he had we would expect the simple “He was there I saw him” but Isaac did not say that.


Col said...

According to Vernal and Jessica, Isaac was with them when baby DeOrr went missing. In other words, baby Deorr's parents, themselves, are providing an alibi for Isaac.

Jessica's mother (who is working closely with the new PI) is sticking with the story that Grandpa was watching DeOrr while Vernal, Jessica and Isaac went fishing.

EATON: It seems like a lot has happened over the last year but yet not a lot has happened. Your father (Robert Walton) passed away and we’re sorry to hear about his death. How are you doing since he died?

CLEGG: Rough. Really rough. There’s just been so much over the past three weeks. We had (private investigator) David Marshburn come in and do some new searches and then my father passed away. I feel like I haven’t had a chance to grieve for my father because there was so much going on so it’s really still very difficult.

I wanted the answers so much before Dennis Kunz died in January and then I said, No, we’ll get the answers before my dad dies. When Marshburn came in and gave us some new information, I thought we had it. It doesn’t mean we don’t but I thought for sure we would know something and then my dad passed away. I had someone close to me say, ‘Does it scare you that you may never find the answers?’ That was a really big reality that as a grandparent, we’ve lost the two great-grandparents and that was a little rough thinking I may never find the answers.

EATON: I’m sure people have asked if your father had anything to say about DeOrr before he passed.

CLEGG: No. He just kept telling Jessica that he was very sorry. Sorry that he took his eyes off that baby and he just kept telling Jessica that he was so sorry.
Time will tell, but I think Grandpa's about to be thrown under the bus.

Anonymous said...

OT: baby DeOrr

I’m not familiar with this case, but there’s an interesting pattern in the below quote. CLEGG keeps referring to “the answers” and “information”. Each of these references is immediately followed by references to death (“died”, “dies”, “passed away”, “lost”). Is CLEGG trying to tell us something between the lines? Is the answer that baby DeOrr died? Granted: the interviewer is asking her about the death of her father so that explains why she repeatedly refers to death. But it's an interesting pattern nonetheless. Also: why does she speak of “the” answers. “The” makes "answers" specific. Does she know what the answers are? Also interesting things in the rest of the interview. CLEGG says the word "rough" three times. "Rough. Really rough" seem to be her first words in this interview (?) First words are always important. Later on she says "a little rough" followed by "the answers". Does the answer lie in someone being too rough with baby DeOrr? In the last sentence, baby DeOrr is referred to as "that baby" (distancing) (and the word "sorry" is said three times -> “very sorry”, “sorry”, “so sorry”).

"I wanted the answers so much before Dennis Kunz died in January and then I said, No, we’ll get the answers before my dad dies. When Marshburn came in and gave us some new information, I thought we had it. It doesn’t mean we don’t but I thought for sure we would know something and then my dad passed away. I had someone close to me say, ‘Does it scare you that you may never find the answers?’ That was a really big reality that as a grandparent, we’ve lost the two great-grandparents and that was a little rough thinking I may never find the answers."


frommindtomatter said...


This is a great video with interviews etc about the baby DeOrr case.



frommindtomatter said...

Vernal Kunz 1min 10 secs into clip


“I did not get an attorney because [I am a guilty man]; I got an attorney because I am tired of being accused of something [I would never do]”

The video is full of statements to analyse like the one above.


Anonymous said...

With all the reporting on the anniversary of the moon landing, thanks to Peter for this food for reflection.


Anonymous said...

or even better, this one,
Peter with
Richard Hall
Analyzing the astronauts


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the links, Adrian. I will look into it. It seems like a very interesting (and sad) case. I've also watched the video on analyzing the astronauts (richplanet-link). Also very interesting.


Willow said...

If I get it correctly Richard D. Hall believes man has travelled in space, been to the moon etc., but not with the kind of physics, mechanics and vehicles they claim it has happened.
Large portions of physics has been taken away from the science, away from within the reach of the average person.
Humanity at large is governed and controlled with distorted science.

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Willow said...

Dear M,

My thoughts are swirling like a chocolate sundae today. Wow, it was only recently I realized the true nature of atomic particles. Im only beginning my journey in this time-space continuum, but let me assure you, Willow, my exploration of youtube yielded a wonderful Physics tutor talking about cold fusion for starters. I hope that can guide you towards learning the kinds of things I am just beginning to know, like the secrets hidden from us about all kinds of things. Atomic particles have provided me eye-opening information about what is ruling this world ie. manipulated science. It feels like like a scoop of butter pecan just fell on my thought-swirl...oh, and here comes a cherry.

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...

SF said...

How can something accelerate or even travel with no gravity? I did a simple experiment by throwing first an apple (which is heavy) and then a straw which is very lightweight & the fact of the matter is Velocity cannot exist without gravity. I must throw the straw harder (more force) than the apple to get it to travel (velocity) through the air. This illustrates the concept that without gravity there is no ability to direct something or make it travel WITHOUT GRAVITY!!!! How would you determine the speed of a train on a planet with no gravity (keep in mind there is no gravity in space)? Answer: you couldnt bc without gravity you are at the very least no longer able to apply earthly Physics and the train would not even stay on the tracks—it would float into space. My son told me I am wrong about all of this & seemed to think I was speaking jibberish, but I think I am right.

It is not sand on the moon it is extremely fine dust, the pounded remains of rock that is so fine it covered the astronauts suits, and anything it came into contact with, a foot print would have shown up nicely in the dust and also footprints and tyre prints from the moon rover as they moved around on the surface. As there is no wind, the prints will remain in place forever until destroyed by meteorites or future moon landings or habitation or destruction of the moon.

Hi SF, There is gravity in outer space and in inner space.
It is gravity that keeps things in place in space be it us on a planet, a planet in orbit around its sun, its sun in place in its galaxy and a galaxy in place in its place in the universe and a universe in its place in the multiverses.
We see gravity in all its glory both on our planet every day as we move around, pick a leaf off the ground, fly in aircraft, jump from a plane ad reach terminal velocity or on a roller coaster.
We see the difference in gravity when we leave our planet and reach low earth orbit as seen in the space shuttle, we saw gravity as it appears on the moon where it is 1/6th earth gravity and we see it at its most glorious in a black hole where it is so powerful that not even light can escape.