Thursday, October 3, 2019

Pronouns: The Pronoun "I" in Analysis

Is there a single word in the English language that we use more than the word, "I"?

The pronoun "I" is critical in evaluating a sentence. It speaks to psychological commitment. 

"I went to the store this morning." is, on its form, reliable. As such, it is about 90% likely to be true. If the subject is lying, it signals a departure from the norm, and an ability to fabricate reality. It often reveals a personality type that is very dangerous to society. It is not a panic lie, nor an exaggeration, but something we find to be rare.  It often is later revealed that it is personality driven; meaning the subject has been successfully deceiving since childhood. 

We take note when the subject begins a statement with the pronoun "I" and when the subject does not. When a statement begins without the pronoun "I", yet uses it later, it is a strong signal that the subject does not want to, psychologically, commit to the statement. We often find deception in such statements. 

We take note of the sudden disappearance of the pronoun "I", especially mid-statement. This will be examined in a subsequent post. 

The Language of Addiction 

Active addiction has a language all its own. Similar to sexual assault victims, theft statements and other allegations, studying one subset at a time, methodically, yields accuracy in analysis. 

Such study will have emotional impact as the suffering from addiction is:

a. complex
b. tragically destructive 
c. highly politicized 
d. profitable

Addicts will use the language of manipulation, as the powerful brain impulse for relief (opioid, alcohol) signals, and such relief is sought in desperation. This begins to become a normal pattern which will impact the language. 

Addicts are, due to the constant post euphoric depression (lethargy, increased pain sensitivity, anxiety, etc), in a state of distress. The brain's natural "feel good" disruption is chronic; hence the deceptive nature of drug abuse. The post euphoric state is acute during withdrawal and fades over time, though this can last for many months; called "PAWS", or "post acute withdrawal symptom,"

It can alter the personality; particularly optimism or hope in life.  

Methadone clinics often have very high turn over of counselors because of the high stress in dealing with addicts. It is wearing to be incessantly lied to (consider the inherent insult) but perhaps the greater toll is in dealing with the projective depression, anger and often being blamed as being part of a conspiracy against the addict. 

Those who view themselves as victims of life have the poorest prognosis. We find in the language a shifting of responsibility (often using passivity) in even small issues, as well as chronic negativity. Conversely, those who take personal responsibility with the hope of changing self (rather than changing the world), have much better chances at recovery.  

"Misery loves company" is sometimes the result of being unable to free oneself from chronic low level depression and the pessimism that is all but expected from the hormonal disruption of the brain via substance abuse. 

This is a recent public post.  Note that it does not begin with the pronoun "I"--- 

it is interesting that the subject psychologically distances herself from the statement yet tells us why in the next sentence.  

In analyzing a statement, we not only discern deception from truth, but we look for the subject to tell us what her priority or purpose in posting is, and any dominant personality traits that may emerge. 

The language of addiction takes careful study in applying principles  and is valued for Employment Analysis. Those in recovery, acting in working sobriety, are relatively easy to spot as near opposite of the language of addiction. 

For training in deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services, and do some research into the training. Lie Detection and profiling (pyscho-linguistic) standards in the Complete Statement Analysis Course. 

The advanced work in analysis is vital for interviews, including social science professionals who seek to help mitigate the suffering of others.  Analysts are trained to carefully note each word, the use of ellipsis, order, additional language, linguistic disposition, as well as priority & personality traits. 

They seek to learn more about the subject;

What is her purpose? 
Does she show as empathetic of those suffering?
What do you make of the longest sentences? 

What is her prognosis at this time for recovery? 

Pronouns often "tell the story." 

Look for a new upcoming course release:  "The Language of Addiction" for those who have successfully finished The Complete Statement Analysis Course. 

Below is the beginning of her statement.  

****************************************************



Saw a client at my clinic not get dosed today because the nurse said she was "fucked up"... I didn't personally see her ...but according to other clients in the waiting room she had been upset and crying about a personal problem she was having...Having a bad...stressful time like happens to all of us. 







32 comments:

GrannysBlanket said...

Both saw the client, and didn't see the client, it's almost comic.

"Because" - hina clause. Sensitive /possibly unreliable. She's also reporting somebody else's words.

Negative disposition towards the nurse and the clinic - paints them as unsympathetic monsters, denying people their "dose" for having personal problems. She needs to give us the reason she's crying - again indicating sensitivity.

It sounds to me like she's setting up a relapse, which she can then blame on the clinic and the "bad" and "stressful" time she having.

Prospect for recovery near mom existent at this time.

She has low empathy - she didn't even see the girl or know anything about her problems, but she is kinda fake empathising, to make herself look good.

Anonymous said...

I dont get it....cop Amber G killed a man in his own apt and his brother doesnt want her in jail and hugs her. This case seems so weird?

Anonymous said...

The brother senses that it was an accident.

Anonymous said...

Regarding SA and addiction, I saw a post on FB today that sent up my SA radar...here is the first sentence...can someone tell me if it is a reliable statement?

“As I reflect back on the last two years since I had my last drink, I am amazed to see the difference when you decide to turn your Fear into Faith and to turn everything over to God.”

I haven’t drank in 15 yrs, and the true way of beating addiction has little to do with the fluffy AA-type language she is professing. What she has written is a cliche.
I also find the statement to be unreliable according to SA.
Can someone analyze it? I am curious what others think.

Anonymous said...

‘I Can’t Find My Daughter’: Officials Release Mother’s 911 Call Reporting Dulce Maria Alavez Missing

BRIDGETON, N.J. (CBS) — The Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office has released the 911 call when the mother of 5-year-old Dulce Maria Alavez reported her daughter’s disappearance from a park in Bridgeton. Dulce has now been missing for over two weeks.

In the call from Sept. 16, an emotional Noema Alavez Perez told the 911 dispatcher that she couldn’t find her daughter at Bridgeton City Park.

“Ermm, i can’t find my daughter,” Alavez Perez said. “We were up there at the park and people say that somebody probably took her.”

Alavez Perez said in the call that she was in the car when Dulce and her brother went running to the park. When Alavez Perez and her sister went looking for her, she says they found her son crying with Dulce nowhere in sight.

“They said somebody threw his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away,” Alavez Perez said.

Alavez Perez said in a press conference earlier this week she was in her car helping her sister with homework and scratching off a lottery ticket when Dulce disappeared.

Police believe a man lured Dulce away from the playground at the Bridgeton park.

Police are looking for a light-skinned, possibly Hispanic man who was seen driving a red van with tinted windows.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/10/03/i-cant-find-my-daughter-officials-release-mothers-911-call-reporting-dulce-maria-alavez-missing/

soundcloud

https://soundcloud.com/user-918740186/9-16-19-redacted-9-1-1-call-reporting-missing-child-bridgeton-park

frommindtomatter said...

^ Saw a client at [my clinic] not get dosed today [because] [the nurse] said she was ["fucked up"]... I didn't [personally] see her ...[but] according to other clients in the waiting room she [had been] upset and crying about a [personal] problem she was having...Having a bad...stressful time [like happens to all of us].

The writer does not make commitment at the beginning of the statement but does take possession of the clinic (“my clinic”) and also identifies the nurse as “the nurse”. They also quote the nurse as saying she was “fucked up” which suggests that they heard the nurse say that.

“I didn't personally see her ...but according to other clients in the waiting room”

This is their only use of the pronoun “I” in their statement so we believe the words that follow but this raises a question. They didn’t see her but got information from others in the waiting room. This leads to the question where the speaker was when this event occurred. If those in the waiting room witnessed the event and the speaker didn’t I want to know where the speaker was?

I notice the word “personally” and “personal” are included in the statement and this leads me to believe that the speaker may be the subject of their own story. Is the speaker in fact the “she” she is describing?

She didn’t get her dose as “the nurse” said she was “fucked up”. She goes into great detail when saying “she had been upset and crying about a [personal] problem she was having” which includes the extra word “personal” which brings this close to her heart. She finishes by making her excuses “like happens to all of us”.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Her purpose is to excuse her behavior which prevented her from getting her dose.

While waiting for her dose, she was upset and crying - possibly minimizing how disruptive she was, as she calls in the "normal" factor by stating that bad, stressful times "like" happen to "all of us".

Her deception reveals her lack of empathy.

Until she processes her personal problems and stops lying, her prognosis for recovery is poor.

frommindtomatter said...

OT:

‘I Can’t Find My Daughter’: Officials Release Mother’s 911 Call Reporting Dulce Maria Alavez Missing.

https://soundcloud.com/user-918740186/9-16-19-redacted-9-1-1-call-reporting-missing-child-bridgeton-park

I transcribed audio from the link for those who want analyse it.

Operator: 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: I can’t find my daughter.

Operator: When was the last time you seen her?

Caller: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.

Operator: Ok how old is she?

Caller: She’s five years old.

Operator: Ok and what park are you at?

Caller: Here in Bridgeton Park.

Operator: OK where in the Bridgeton Park are you?

Caller: Umm... The one with the basketball court where the high school is.

Operator: Ah OK so you’re at the basketball courts behind the high school?

Caller: Yes.

Operator: Ok, and what was she seen last wearing?

Caller: (pauses) …She was wearing um…, umm, give me a second (speaks to another person in Spanish). I don’t remember what clothes she was wearing, but she was wearing, I just remember her pants, she was wearing like a flower, flowery pants, and some heels, some white heels.

Operator: Ok ma’am stay on the line I will transfer you over to the police.

Operator: And you said she was five correct?

Caller: Yes.

Police: Hello ma’am, did you she which direction your child went?

Caller:No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here. They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.
Police: OK hold on.

Adrian.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The father of a mother who disappeared ten years ago says he believes that her husband poisoned her with pancakes.

Chuck Cox blames Josh Powell for killing his daughter Susan and then disposing of the mother-of-two's body.

He makes the claim in a NBC Dateline special that will air a cache of new evidence

Susan, 28, was last seen at the home she shared with Josh and their two sons in West Valley City, Utah, on December 7, 2009.

Josh claimed he had taken the boys on a midnight excursion in freezing temperatures and returned to find his wife had vanished.

Authorities initially focused their attentions to Josh, who after losing custody of his children during the investigation, blew up his house with himself and his young boys locked inside.

Though prior to his death Josh protested that he had no idea what happened to his wife that night, Susan’s father, Chuck Cox, believes otherwise, telling NBC the night before she disappeared he had, uncharacteristically, offered to make the family dinner.

In a clip obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com, Cox recalls the moment he found out about the unusual gesture, believing Josh to have seized upon the opportunity to poison Susan.

‘When I heard that Josh had fixed them pancakes for dinner and put the pancakes on each person's plate, and then cleaned up the dishes immediately afterwards, I mean I just get chills down my back.

‘I've seen how he treated her in the house. I've seen how much he cares to help with dishes or cooking or anything.’

When asked if Josh cared at all to help his wife with domestic chores typically, Cox simply replies: ‘Not at all. Absolutely not. That was so out of character that it was just - that was scary.’

But Josh wasn’t the only Powell family member thought to have played a part in Susan’s disappearance and suspected murder.

Neither Josh, nor anyone else was ever charged in relation to the case, however his brother, Michael, and father, Steve, were both heavily suspected by investigators of having played a role.

Michael was first suspected by police in 2011, when it was discovered he had paid to have his car towed to a salvage yard two weeks after Susan vanished.

The 1997 ford Taurus was recovered from the Lindell Auto in Pendleton, Oregon, where authorities conducted forensic tests.

A cadaver dog indicated the presence of human decomposition inside the vehicle’s trunk, however DNA tests came back inconclusive.

Investigators from Utah visited Michael at his home in Minneapolis that October to interview him about the discovery and probe as to whether it had been used to transport Susan’s body from the home.

However, former detective Ellis Maxwell says he refused to answer any questions.



Tania Cadogan said...

cont.

Two months later her contacted satellite imagery Apollo Mapping to obtain aerial images of Pendleton, Ohio, making specific mention to Lindell Auto Salvage yard.

He was told by the company they could only acquire a partial photograph of the yard, which Michael expressed interest in buying.

Police theorized that Josh had killed Susan, and that Michael assisted in helping him to dispose of the body, but they didn’t have enough evidence to file charges against the brothers.

Michael was fiercely outspoken in denying his brother’s involvement in Susan’s disappearance, telling People that his brother was ‘grief-stricken’, and police time would be better spent looking for a suspect outside of the family.

‘As someone who is close to Josh, I know he is hurting because he misses his wife, and my hope for him is that people are understanding of that,’ he told the outlet.

He later set up his own website to blast the local police department, accusing them of slandering ‘the Powell family through a bizarre effort to cover up endeavors on our part to aid in the search for Josh's wife’.

Michael also used the website to defend his father, who had been charged in an unrelated case with 14 counts of voyeurism and one count of possessing images of minors depicted in a sexually explicit manner.

He accused the police department of planting the images, which depicted two of his neighbor’s children, however Steve was later found guilty of all counts.

They also discovered photographs of Susan Powell, some reportedly taken while she was undressed, in his possession.

On February 5, 2012, Josh butchered his two young sons with a hatchet, before igniting cans of gasoline and blowing himself and the boys up in a fiery explosion at his Washington State home.

Following the murder-suicide, Michael became ensnared in a legal battle with Susan’s parents regarding Josh and his son’s $1.5 million insurance policy.

Four months before his death, Josh listed Michael as the beneficiary instead of Susan, however courts denied Michael access to the money.

Over a year later, Michael committed suicide by jumping from the roof of a building in downtown Minneapolis.

Immediately after Susan's disappearance, Steven Powell claimed his daughter-in-law was in love with him. In July 2011 he announced that he planned to publish her private journal online. Her parents managed to get a restraining order.

A month later, Josh Powell and his father went on national television to discuss the case. They claimed Susan Powell was promiscuous, emotionally unstable and suicidal, a claim her family denied.

Steven Powell said he had a flirtatious relationship with his daughter-in-law and believed they were in love.

‘People don't know that there are two distinct sides of Susan. She was very ... kind of an open person in a sexual way ... with the opposite sex,’ he said.

'Susan was very sexual with me,' Steve Powell told ABC's Good Morning America. 'We interacted in a lot of sexual ways because Susan enjoys doing that.'

'I'm still thinking she left. Hopefully they'll be able to find her at some point... We don't believe she's dead.'

The Coxes defended their daughter and said it was Steven Powell who initiated unwanted sexual advances.

Tania Cadogan said...

cont.


Investigators would later find 17 spiral-bound notebooks, detailing Steve Powell’s disturbing sexual obsession with his daughter-in-law, in which he admitted he would regularly secretly record Susan and later watch the clips back to masturbate to.

He also detailed how he would spy on Susan as she showered and used to the bathroom by placing a handheld mirror underneath the door.’

'The fact is, I can hardly control myself when it comes to her,' wrote Steve in one entry, questioning whether his obsession ‘might be considered sociopathic. I mean, who looks under the bathroom door with a mirror?’

He went on to explain that he’s ‘never lusted for a woman as I have for Susan,’ calling his love for her his ‘greatest problem’ and ‘greatest pleasure’.

‘I enjoy taking video shots of pretty girls in shorts and skirts, beautiful women of every age,’ Steve wrote in one excerpt about secretly videotaping women such as Susan. ‘I sometimes use these images for self-stimulation.’

In the lead up to his arrest, police would discover hours worth of illegal home movies in which he tapped dozens of females – including an eight-year-old and 10-year-old girl who lived nearby – without their knowledge.

An audio tape was also recovered by police, in which Steve can be heard confessing his love for Susan eight years before she disappeared.

‘I am still convinced she loves me and is sexually attracted to me,’ Steve wrote after the disappearance.

Steve was released from prison in 2017 after serving five years for child pornography possession. He died aged 67 the following year after suffering a heart attack.

In announcing his death, the Pierce County Sherriff’s Office said, ‘We believe a lot of secrets died with him,’ in reference to Susan’s disappearance.

Dateline NBC with air its episode of Haunted this Friday, at 9:00pm EST / 8:00pm CT.

Presented by Keith Morrison, the new two-hour special will dig through private journals, home videos, and emails to help retrace Susan’s final days - and unearth a number of the Powell family’s dark secrets.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7535193/Father-missing-Susan-Powell-says-believes-husband-poisoned-PANCAKES.html

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Amanda Knox spoken about her recent return to Italy for a segment that will air Thursday on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt.

In the interview, Knox discusses how it felt to return to the country where she losty years of her life after being accused of murdering her British roommate Meredith Kercher.

'We spoke on the phone shortly before you made that trip. And you sounded like you were genuinely afraid,' notes Holt in a clip obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com.

'I was genuinely afraid,' explains Knox, prompting Holt to ask what it was that made her so 'fearful' about the trip.

'The fact that I had been invited by the Italy Innocence Project and welcomed to take part in their event was tremendously important to me,' says Knox.

'But that didn't change the fact I still have people who send me messages describing how they're going to murder me.'

The interview also gives Knox a chance to talk about her new podcast, The Truth About True Crime.

The latest season is focused on stories of vigilante justice.

The entire interview will air at 6:30pm on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, followed by a piece on Friday during Today.

Knox said that the media is to blame for making it appear as though she were guilty of murder during that trip to Italy.

America's most infamous foreign exchange student had not bee back to the country since she was acquitted in 2011, four years after Kercher's death.

She spoke during a Trial By Media panel, and told those in attendance that she was depicted 'on the global scene as cunning, psychopath, drugged, whore, guilty.'

This all culminated with Knox breaking down as she recounted the 'false and baseless story, which fueled people’s fantasies.'

It was actually not until 2015 that she was fully cleared in the case, which spent four years in appeals court after her acquittal.

Italy's highest overturned the 2009 conviction in the brutal murder and sexual assault of Kercher against Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaelle Sollecito, in 2011.

The court did however uphold Knox's slander conviction for wrongly accusing Congolese-born bar owner Diya Lumumba in the murder.

It reduced the slander sentence to three years.

Knox spent nearly four years in jail after being convicted, and had been sentenced to 26 years following her initial conviction.

The court battle went on for seven and a half years, with flip-flop decisions that saw her return to the United States after being acquitted only to face another trial after the acquittal was thrown out.

She then faced her second appeals trial and high court proceedings in absentia while living in Washington.

Knox is set to marry her longtime boyfriend Christopher Robinson later this year.

The two met after Knox, who was engaged to musician Colin Sutherland at the time, reviewed Robinson's book War of the Encyclopeadists on her blog.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7534501/Amanda-Knox-reveals-people-send-messages-describing-going-murder-her.html

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Adrian.

Thanks for transcription. The one you worked off isn't the full transcript. Here is the full one with transcription on the screen.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Dulce-Maria-Alavez-Mom-Missing-5-Year-Old-911-Calls-562091091.html

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette (one of Canada’s most horrifying unsolved murders)

Peter and commenters on this blog: I would be so interested to know your thoughts on the below denial:

Background information
On December 12, 1996, Wayne Greavette received a package via the mail at his new residence in Puslinch Township, Ontario, Canada. The package contained a flashlight and an anonymous, typewritten letter. When Wayne turned the flashlight on, it exploded. He was killed instantly. His wife Diane and son Justin, witnessed the horrific killing and were injured in the blast.

Two persons of interest are Edward Galick Sr. – Wayne’s former employer and business partner – and his son Edward Galick Jr. Both were interviewed for a podcast series on this case (by CBC’s Someone Knows Something).

Denial
Near the end of his interview Galick Jr. is told that Wayne’s family would be relieved to hear him say something similar to what his dad had said (i.e. not involved in Wayne’s murder). Galick Jr. responds:

"Oh, I’m not gonna say that. I mean, I, to me I don’t need to say something that is just so obvious. But what I will tell them is that I never ever wished their family or Wayne harm or anybody dead in my life, even to the extent that my father is treating me and the way he has done me in my life, I don’t even wish him dead. I’m incapable of wishing anybody dead. So yes, no, I did not have anything to do with the murder of Wayne Greavette. And you know what, quite frankly I, I’m, I’m, I‘m quite surprised that nobody has found out what’s gone on yet. It blows me away that, that in this country that we can’t find out who did this."

Anonymous letter accompanying the flashlight
MR. WAYNE GREAVETTE,
DEAR SIR,

MY PARTNERS AND I ARE OPENING A NEW BUSINESS SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR CALLED ACTON HOME PRODUCTS AND WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING YOU GIVE US A PRICE ON REBUILDING SOME EQUIPMENT.\

YOU DID SOME WORK FOR A COMPANY I WAS WITH A FEW YEARS AGO AND THOUGH YOU WON’T REMEMBER ME, LISA AND YOUR DELIVERY MAN JOE MOST LIKELY WILL.\

WE DON’T PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER THE NEW YEAR, BUT WOULD BE MOST ANXIOUS TO PROCEED AT THAT TIME.\ WE HAVE NO STAFF OR OFFICE IN PLACE JUST YET, BUT YOU CAN REACH US BY MAIL AT OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW.\ THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, AND I’LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR.\

SINCERELY,

WILLIAM J. FRENCH
ACTON HOME PRODUCTS
RR #1 UNIT #6
ACTON ONTARIO
L7G 2N1

PS DIDN’T REALIZE YOU HAD MOVED.\ HAD SOME TROUBLE FINDING YOU.\ HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MAY YOU NEVER HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER FLASHLIGHT.\

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Dulce Maria Alavez Missing

Thanks for the link John. Here is the rest of the transcript.

Operator transfers caller to Police (gives details etc..)

Police: Hello ma’am, did you she which direction your child went?

Caller: No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here. They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.

Police: OK hold on.

Police: Alright, you didn’t see anyone else around there that she could have possibly went with?

Caller: No not… not that I know of, cause we just don’t know. There’s just some other people that.., they are here that say that they saw her running. Running through um…,Through some houses in the back. And they, they said that they saw two pers… they saw two men. They saw a black guy and they saw a Mexican man with two kids.

Police: So who’s saying, who’s saying that, who’s saying they saw them?

Caller: There’s people here in the basketball court, that they saw her, they said that they saw her running.

Police: They’re saying that there’s people there at the basketball court, that they saw her running through some houses with two black males.

What colour top did she have on?

Caller: Um... I don’t remember.

Police: Are you at the basketball court?

Caller: Yes I`m right here right now.

Police: And do you have your son with you or is your son…

Caller: No, I have my son with me. They say he was crying when we found him. He was just standing there crying.

Police: he was standing there crying so who… you said that the black males took his ice cream?

Caller: No they threw it on the floor.

Police: So the two males took his ice cream and threw it on the floor, and then they left with your daughter?

Caller: Probably, cause I didn’t saw it. When we came in and look for her we were looking everywhere for her and we couldn’t find her.

Officer arrives on scene.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Wayne Greavette (one of Canada’s most horrifying unsolved murders)

“quite frankly [I, I’m, I’m, I‘m] quite surprised that [nobody has found out] what’s gone on [yet]. It [blows] me away that, that in this country that [we] can’t find out who did this.”

He is very sensitive to the fact that “nobody has found out” due to his stuttering pronoun, and finishes his sentence with the word “yet” which suggests he thinks is it only a matter of time till somebody does.

What I found interesting is that he used the phrase “it blows me away”, considering the victim was killed due to an explosion it is a revealing choice of words. It is obviously on his mind as he speaks.

Adrian.

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

911

"urmm, my daughter is missing".

Apart from the pause (urmm) this is a very strong statement. It is straight to the point.
"My daughter" ownership and status.
"is missing" The reason for the call.

However. What's her daughters name? And the OP needs training. She does not listen and changes the descriptions of what is reported.
She (Mum)answers the questions and doesn't stop the flow of information.

Operator: When was the last time you seen her?

Caller: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.

Would this be classed as a "Hena Clause"?

That Dulce's mum gets through the call without using her name and without prompt (which is the same as her interviews from what iv'e seen) is not good.

@19 seconds. 2 days [after] the "abduction"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7fd6ixpWjY&fbclid=IwAR10SB7mcKnHVsy7n3focOmP7kbQ0zF4AYvbWmbtbWoobSouJuWpYVM3Fxg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxDhuvkS9o

Still no name. Her English is good although she's Spanish, could it be a culture reason?

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

Thanks for looking at it, Adrian. Yes, it's very interesting that he says "it blows me away". He uses that expression several times during the CBC interview and a preceding phone call and each time at crucial moments. For instance when he is asked (in the preceding call) for his thoughts on Wayne's murder his (strange) answer ends with:

"And, eh, you know, I’d, eh, I’d driven by the house and I thought “wow, that’s a pretty neat place”, you know, and then when that happened, I was blown away."

"I was blown away" sounds almost exactly like "I was blowin' up Wayne". Interestingly, he acknowledges here that he had driven by the house (Wayne had recently moved and not many people knew where he lived) whereas in the subsequent interview he denies knowing where Wayne lived.

There are peculiar things in the anonymous letter as well. It seems to be addressed to two persons: Wayne and “DEAR SIR”. Who is “SIR” (SIR -> SR -> Galick Sr.)? The letter is signed by WILLIAM J. FRENCH. Another word for French is Gaelic (Galick?). Does “J” stand for junior (Galick Jr.)? Also: "WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING YOU GIVE US A PRICE ON REBUILDING SOME EQUIPMENT" -> did the murderer recently ask someone to give him a price for rebuilding the flashlight into a bomb? Etcetera.

First sentences are always important. Galick Jr.'s first sentence of his CBC interview is:

"Hello, my name is Ed junior, the son of Edward senior, the owner of SERGE Packaging Equipment. [...] Every time there is a partnership with my father there seems to be a bad break up, including myself."

Weird that he starts an interview about Wayne's murder with information about his relationship with his father. Wayne had a bad business break up with Galick Sr. but Galick Jr. himself had a bad break up with his father as well. Why draw the attention to his father immediately? Did he want to pin the murder on his dad? Also: "my name is Ed junior (...) the owner of SERGE Packaging Equipment" -> does he unwittingly take ownership of the flashlight bomb (a piece of equipment in a package that surged)? Did he send the bomb to frame his father so that he himself could become the owner of SERGE?

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

He spends a large portion of his statement trying to convince the listener that he is not capable of wishing anyone dead which in itself shows it is something very sensitive to him.

“I never ever [wished] their family or Wayne harm or anybody [dead]” - “I don’t even [wish] him [dead]” - I’m incapable of [wishing] anybody [dead]”

He makes the three statements above which all contain the words “wish” and “dead” in them. The statements are made in the negative which makes them more sensitive.

It is like someone being asked if they stole the money and them replying “I have never ever considered stealing money in my life; I am incapable of stealing money etc…” Instead of them making a simple denial and saying “I didn’t steal the money”.

He reveals his feelings towards his father and tells us “I don’t [even] wish him dead”. The fact he could connect his father with those words is worrying. The dependent word “even” enters his language which means he is comparing not wishing his father dead with something else.

The kid who says “I don’t even smoke” (without being asked) shows sensitivity to smoking and is comparing not smoking with smoking by the use of the word “even”. He is thinking about smoking and instead of saying “I don’t smoke” his mind automatically inserts the word “even” which unknowingly tells he is thinking about it. Someone who doesn’t smoke doesn’t think about smoking as it is not in their mind, they have no experience of it so they cannot compare with it.

The speaker brings his father into his statement (free editing process, choosing his own words) and tells us “I don’t [even] wish him dead”. He is thinking about wishing he was dead.

There is a guilty conscious speaking here and he has a need to persuade/convince others that he is incapable of wishing anybody dead. It doesn’t mean he is responsible/connected to Wayne’s death but he is clearly very sensitive regarding his own thoughts. He may be worried others are thinking he may have something to do with it.

I would like to see more of what he has said regarding Wayne’s death.

Interesting points you make about the peculiarities in the anonymous letter, everything comes from what is in a persons mind so subconsciously someone will be giving away something without them realising it.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

I think you’re right: Galick Jr. wishes his father dead. In fact, he admits as much in a previous part of the interview:

”My father took my living away from me. In one day. So if, if, and I will say this on camera in case it ever happens, and I hope not, if there’s someone I’d wanna blow up, that’d be the guy. [snickering] That’d be the individual. He had his inner circle and, you, you know, I’m his son and he would spend more time with the Waynes of the world and stuff than he would with his own family.”

So if a large part of Galick Jr.'s denial is a lie, how can we trust the rest of it (which in itself is also very flawed)?

Some additional things Galick Jr. said about Wayne’s death are:

A. (When asked for his thoughts on Wayne’s murder:)

“Honestly? When that happened, I was shocked. I was shocked. Because I didn’t know Wayne all that well at that […] We had, we had been disconnected for a while. Because you gotta understand that when that was going on, I had left SERGE, right?, and I did and I’d started my own business and all that and I had left my dad as well. That was some years after Wayne left. He had been on his own a good time. And I knew because you hear in the industry right, ‘cause […we all know people…?] And I knew that they got that new place there and they were trying to get the spring water and I knew he was in the machinery business ‘cause I knew they were doing work ‘cause we’d run into each other that type of thing. And, eh, you know, I’d, eh, I’d driven by the house and I thought “wow, that’s a pretty neat place”, you know, and then when that happened, I was blown away.”

B. (When told his father thought he (Galick Jr.) would have the smarts to pull off killing Wayne:)

”No way. Well, there you go. Well, then, you know what? That, it’s amazing that somebody would say like that to me because if you have heard of anything else that he has talked about me. That, that’s kinda strange. So it’s basically an Ed senior Ed junior thing. Dave, I’m gonna tell you something. I’ve never heard my father point the finger any more, in my life, I’ve never heard him say anything like that towards anybody. But for him to say that to me.”
AND
”Ha, ha, ha. Well then, buddy, I’m gonna tell you something. Hearing something like that, I am utterly amazed because the only difficulties that I had with Wayne were through my father. And quite frankly at that, I mean I don’t have bad blood in my system. I mean, I have a quite a bit of animosity towards my father as you can see. But, ehm, just based on what he’s done to my family and to my sons and how he’s interfered in me raising my children over, over time. But, ahm, wow, [laughing] wow, that’s amazing. You blew me away. Well that’s interesting Dave, see and, it, it’s funny that, that, that, you’ve just blown me away, Dave, because I, like I said I never really had any problems with Wayne or, or Diane. I was basically the, the tool to get rid of Wayne and Diane. And you just, you know what, to hear something like that out of somebody’s mouth that knows damn well that I wouldn’t even have the smarts to do something like that. I’ve, I have never been a violent … or been involved in any of that type... Wouldn’t even know how to deal with something like that. For someone to say …. You just blew me away Dave. “

C. (When asked if he knows what the anonymous letter said:)

”I know what the rumor had said. I can tell you that. From what I understood, I heard and what I got told is that this, this may be, this may be the last flashlight you’ll ever need. That was what’s told to me. Other than that, I don’t know. I also heard that his son went to open it first or try to get it running and that he had tooken it away from him, ‘cause he couldn’t get it to go on. That, that’s the only things that I’ve heard. That’s all.”

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

I think this is from the same interview.

00:38:50 min on player (matches within the text referenced 00:39:13)

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/someone-knows/s4-episode-5-jr-OeIbNm3PV5l/

David Ridgen:

Ed Junior claims that when their business relationship ended things got ugly with his dad.

Ed Galick Jr:

I just couldn't, I just couldn't believe, I've never seen that side of him before, I`ve never seen him that angry. I just, I just couldn’t believe [that guy], I mean that was like someone I`d never seen before and it blew me away at his is age that, that kind of [reaction] that happened in that plant that day. Like, like he [basically] [told] me he would, you know, [he would do the same], [he`d kill me.] And, and I asked him and said go ahead and just to take your best shot [this doesn't end here] I'd, I`d never seen him that angry.

The transcript on the site is inaccurate I think it was done with some speech to text software. It isn’t far off but for SA it’s not good enough. I listened through and corrected the bit I have pasted above. Ed Jr. reveals something important in his words.

“Like, like he [basically] [told] me he would, you know, [he would do the same], [he`d kill me.]”

Ed Jr. uses “basically” to avoid going into detail of what was actually said. That may be to avoid disclosing sensitive information or simply so he does not have to go through all that was said and instead offer a summary of what was important. He says his father “told him”, which is strong language and is expected as it fits with the words which follow it. He said his father told him “he would do the same, he`d kill me”

There are two ways to look at this. The first is that Ed Jr had threatened to kill his father during the argument they were having in the plant that day. That could have prompted his father to tell him he would do the same, and we could see it as retaliation to his sons words.

The second interpretation is that during the argument they were having Ed Senior told his son he would kill him and referenced someone else he had killed,

“I`ll kill you the same as I did… (Insert name here)”

Looking at how the statement runs I see,

“like someone I`d never seen before and it blew me away at his is age that, that kind of [reaction] that happened in that plant that day. Like, like he [basically] [told] me he would, you know, [he would do the same], [he`d kill me.]”

There is a “reaction” and we know there has to be a trigger to cause one. It`s clear that something Ed Jr. said caused his father to react in a very angry/aggressive manner. It follows directly in the statement that the threat was made which leads me to believe his father did make a reference to someone who he had killed, and it was in reaction to something Ed Jr. had said. What could Ed Jr. have said which would cause his father to threaten his life?

It’s an interesting case.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

Adrian, that's an interesting part of the interview indeed. It's difficult to transcribe because Galick Jr. throughout the interview talks very quickly (he spits out the words as it were). I transcribed it as follows:

"That just, I just couldn’t beli…, I’ve never seen that side of him before, I’ve never seen him that angry. I, I, I just couldn’t believe that guy, I mean, tha..that was like someone I’ve never seen before and, eh, it blew me away at his age, it, that kind of reaction that, that happened in that plant that day. I, I, like he, he basically told me he would k.., you know, he would do the same, he’d kill me and I, I asked him, said go ahead just, just take your best shot but this doesn’t end here. I, I’d never seen him that angry."

This (on the surface) refers to a major dispute over 7000/8000 dollar on a business deal where Galick Sr. ended up evicting Galick Jr. from a building he owned. I think this dispute may have happened prior to Wayne's murder. In that case, the dispute couldn’t have been about that murder.

However, he may be unwittingly giving details of a second murder that is possibly connected to this case. In 2002, Paul Henttonen, a scrap metal dealer and repairer of pop machines was brutally stabbed to death at his plant annex apartment in Georgetown. Witnesses had seen two suspects flee the scene. Although a large sum of money was gone, the police thinks the motive for Henttonen’s murder was primarily personal.

Galick Jr. knew Henttonen: they were in the same business for many years and Henttonen (like Wayne) was a business partner and good drinking friend of his father. Interestingly, Galick Jr. himself suggests a possible connection between Henttonen’s and Wayne’s murder. When asked about his theories on Wayne’s murder, he answers:

“(…) I knew that Wayne had moved on, but I didn’t even know where. I had so little contact with that part of my life. I was surprised at the Wayne thing. But you know, Wayne had a lot of history with drugs. When I was younger, I remember [Dan] ‘n me hàd a guy that was a big coke dealer, we used to go visit mushrooms and all that kind of stuff, and that gentleman was busted. Just outside of Georgetown. So he was a dealer. Whether or not he had more connections in that, I’m not really sure.”

The way in which he suggests a connection between both cases is interesting. He doesn’t merely say: another man was killed and there may be a connection. No, he puts himself and his partner right at the middle of the scene: they “had” a guy, they visited the dealer, they used (…) lots of stuff (drugs) and that gentleman “was busted”. By the way: I have not found any information that Henttonen was indeed a coke dealer but, according to his father, Galick Jr. himself had a severe coke addiction.

There are possible parallels between the major dispute between father and son Galick and Henttonen’s murder: (1) a dispute over money, (2) with an older man, (3) a “reaction” happening in a plant, (4) someone being extremely angry, (5) death threats being exchanged, (6) it not ending there.

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

I think the dispute between father and son Galick may have happened before Wayne's murder. The dispute was a result of Galick Jr. (1) failing to realize a business deal. As a result thereof, Galick Jr. (2) had to move (eviction) and (3) got into financial trouble.

Now look at the afterthought in the anonymous letter:

”PS DIDN’T REALIZE YOU HAD MOVED.\ HAD SOME TROUBLE FINDING YOU.\ HAVE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND MAY YOU NEVER HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER FLASHLIGHT.\"

Autumn said...

Joshua Brown, next door neighbour of Botham Jean and key witness for the prosecution in the Amber Guyger trial, was shot and killed days after the guilty verdict. He was reportedly exiting his car at his apartment when he was ambushed & shot at close range through the mouth (for testifying?) and the chest.

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

Thanks for the transcripts.

“(…) I knew that Wayne had moved on, but I didn’t even know where. I had so little contact with that part of my life. I was surprised at the Wayne thing. But you know, Wayne had a lot of history with drugs. When I was younger, I remember [Dan] ‘n me hàd a guy that was a big coke dealer, we used to go visit mushrooms and all that kind of stuff, and that gentleman was busted. Just outside of Georgetown. So he was a dealer. Whether or not he had more connections in that, I’m not really sure.”

“I didn’t [even] know where” – He adds the extra word “even” into his statement and reveals he is thinking another thought, one which he is comparing against his words. If he didn’t know where Wayne was I would expect him to simply state it by saying “I didn’t know where”. He is thinking about where Wayne was which has caused the word “even” to enter his language. He is telling us what is important to him, what he wants the listener to be aware of. He has a need to convince that he did not know where Wayne was which shows he is sensitive to it.

“I was [surprised] at the Wayne [thing]” – He classes Wayne’s murder as a “thing” which is distancing language. A thing is something a person does not wish to put a name to. Also I find him saying he was “surprised” as very soft language considering he was talking about someone he knew being blown up and murdered. I would expect him to say “I was shocked at Wayne’s murder”. When someone is surprised they are caught off guard, unexpectedly. If I went out on a sunny day without my coat and an hour later it started to rain I would be surprised, but deep down I knew it was something which could happen. I wouldn’t be shocked by it. Ed Jr. is not shocked by Wayne’s murder but only surprised (caught off guard).

“I remember [Dan] ‘n me [hàd] a guy that was a [big] coke dealer” – It’s interesting he refers to the drug dealer by saying “had a guy”, he takes possession of him by using the word “had”. He was something he had. He also tells us that he was a “big” coke dealer. So to Ed Jr. this guy was a big player.

“and [that] [gentleman] was busted” – the drug dealer who they visited was a “guy” but Ed Jr. later refers to him as a “gentleman” when saying he was busted. So he bought drugs off a “guy” but later knew a “gentleman” who was busted. He then gives the location of where the gentleman was busted. This is a fair change in language as he would want to distance himself from this person when he was caught.

“Whether or not he had more connections in that, I’m not [really] sure.”” – He offers the possibility that this dealer may have had more connections. By saying “I’m not [really] sure” he weakens his claim of not being sure. He could of said “I don’t know” or “I`m not sure” but by adding the word “really” it shows he is thinking about possibilities (people/connections) which are causing him to weaken his statement.

It is interesting that when talking about Wayne’s death and trying to distance himself from it he moves onto the topic of the drug dealer. Was Wayne a big drug user? Have Police investigated this avenue in their inquiries.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

”I knew that Wayne had moved on, but I didn’t even know where.”
This is the first thing Galick Jr. says in response to a question for his theories on Wayne’s murder. What does Galick Jr.’s (lack of) knowledge of Wayne’s new address have to do with that? Why the need to defend himself. Also: it's a flat-out lie -> he knew full well where Wayne lived because in an earlier phone call he told Ridgen he had driven by Wayne's new residence prior to his murder.

”I had so little contact with that part of my life.”
Again: what does this have to do with his theories on Wayne’s murder? This is the second excuse he gives for himself.

”I was surprised at the Wayne thing."
Agreed: “thing” is minimizing language and surprise is indeed very soft language given the atrociousness of the murder. Was he perhaps (in hindsight) surprised at his own actions? And/or did he surprise Wayne with a thing (flashlight)? Also: shouldn’t it be obvious that Wayne’s murder was a surprise to him? The fact that he has to say it makes me think he was not surprised at all. All the more since he starts the next sentence with “but”.

”But you know, Wayne had a lot of history with drugs. When I was younger, I remember [Dan] ‘n me hàd a guy that was a big coke dealer, we used to go visit mushrooms and all that kind of stuff, and that gentleman was busted. Just outside of Georgetown. So he was a dealer. Whether or not he had more connections in that, I’m not really sure.”
Here, Galick Jr. suggests Wayne's murder may be linked to Wayne’s "history with drugs" but he – very strangely – illustrates this with an example of HIS OWN drug connections. Fact is: Galick Jr. himself had a lot of history with drugs. His father says he had such a severe coke addiction that he was beyond salvaging.
Why does Galick Jr. bring his own history with drugs up when asked for his theories on Wayne’s murder? Is this just another (third) excuse? Was the flashlight murder planned and executed under the influence of drugs?
The story Galick Jr. gives is reminiscent of Henttonen’s murder. However, for several reasons I think Galick Jr. didn’t intend to raise that murder here. He wanted to convince Ridgen of his bogus suggestion, couldn’t think of a real example of Wayne’s drug connections, made one up and in the process leaked details of Henttonen’s murder. First of all: the story doesn’t flow at all. It's gibberish. For example: “we used to go visit mushrooms” -> who says that. Second of all: if Galick Jr. intended to give Henttonen’s murder as an example of Wayne's drug connections surely he would have said Henttonen's name and explained that Henttonen was a business partner and good drinking friend of both Wayne and his father? Third of all: why does he say Henttonen was a coke dealer whereas he was known by everybody as a scrap dealer?
I think by saying “big” and “gentleman” Galick Jr. gives details of Henttonen. Henttonen was a big and, by all accounts, friendly, gentle man.

The extent of Wayne’s drug use is not clear. His widow says he regularly smoked weed but didn’t use hard drugs or, if so, very rarely. Danny [Shelkin?], Galick Jr.’s former business partner, says he knew Wayne since the ‘80s and does not believe Greavette was involved with drugs. Galick Sr. says he suspects that Wayne may have been on cocaine in the last few years of his life (however he wasn’t in contact with Wayne during those years).

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

“Like, like he [basically] [told] me he would, you know, [he would do the same], [he`d kill me.]”

As I mentioned earlier I think this statement from Ed Jr. tells us a lot. They speak to his father doing the same (repeating an action) in connection with Killing. I believe what he is telling us although he doesn’t give full detail of what was said by minimising it by saying “basically”. He still lets slip the extra words “he would do the same.

The shortest sentence is best so why did he include those words? I expect:

“Like he basically told me he would he`d kill me.”

We could interpret that as something said in a heated argument and dismiss it as an empty threat, something said in anger but not meant literally. By adding the words “he would do the same” it changes the context altogether, his fathers threat cannot be interpreted as empty.

He tells us all his father cares about is money. So I could see him being a man who likes control and power and could do what it takes to make sure he is the Kingpin of the business world he is in. The big Mafia type bosses never gets their hands dirty, many would be incapable of killing another person, but they don’t have any problems thinking about or wishing their rivals dead. His father has the money and unless Ed Jr. is a very skilled manipulator and deliberately planted the story and words about the argument at the plant the finger points to his father. If his reference of “he would do the same” does not refer to Wayne it could refer to the guy you mentioned (Paul Henttonen) or another person.

Google lists Wayne’s death as December 12, 1996 and you said “In 2002, Paul Henttonen, a scrap metal dealer and repairer of pop machines was brutally stabbed to death at his plant annex apartment in Georgetown”. So if Ed Jr. statement is after 1996 then he could be making reference to either of them.

I would scrutinize any statements made by Ed Snr.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

Adrian, thanks. I don’t think “he would do the same, he’d kill me” necessarily refers to a murder the father had committed. After all, Galick Jr. doesn’t say his father said “he would do the same TO ME”. The question much rather arises: the same AS WHO. It’s possible Galick Jr. said “I’ll kill you “ and his father returned the death threat (he threatened to do the same). Immediately after this statement, Galick Jr. comes up with the story about the “big coke dealer”. So Henttonen’s murder is at the forefront of his mind when he talks about the major dispute with his father. Could it be that he mixes the two?

Galick Sr. is also interviewed in the CBC-podcast ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFZkPvmiqcI ). Contrary to Galick Jr., Galick Sr. gave hair samples to the police and volunteered doing a polygraph. I think Galick Sr. is not involved in the murder but that he suspects his son:

"Hypothetically, my son is, like, a little weird guy “I wanna get rid of my pa and Wayne, ‘cause I hate Wayne cause he’s like my father’s, he’s like a son” and he’s jealous and all that. Like, you know, I mean, I thought about something like that. “So, I’ll do Wayne in. They’re gonna go after my pa. So I get rid of Wayne and my pa and I get the business.” There you go. Killed two birds in one stone.”

What sticks out is the great difficulty Galick Jr. seems to have to issue a denial. At one point Ridgen asks Galick Jr. what he thinks the first word out of his father’s mouth was when asked who would have had the smarts to pull of killing Wayne. Galick Jr. answers: “Me?”. Ridgen confirms: “Eddie Junior”. Galick Jr. responds:

“No way. Well, there you go. Well, then, you know what? That, it’s amazing that somebody would say like that to me because if you have heard of anything else that he has talked about me. That, that’s kinda strange. So it’s basically an Ed senior Ed junior thing. Dave, I’m gonna tell you something. I’ve never heard my father point the finger any more, in my life, I’ve never heard him say anything like that towards anybody. But for him to say that to me.”

Not only does Ed Jr. point the finger directly at himself. He also NEVER DENIES IT, when he learns his dad did the same. Wouldn’t that be the first thing you’d do if your dad suggested you could have committed a murder? Not Ed Jr. He says “Well, there you go” and “I’ve never heard my father point the finger any more” (so it must be true?). And: “it’s basically and Ed senior Ed junior thing”. In other words, this wasn’t about Wayne.

Ridgen then tells Ed Sr. that his father said “no” when asked if he thought his son had something to do with Wayne’s murder. That would have been another perfect opportunity for Ed Jr. to issue a denial. But, he doesn’t. Instead he gives a long answer including:

“Ha, ha, ha. Well then, buddy, I’m gonna tell you something. (…) But, ahm, wow, [laughing] wow, that’s amazing. You blew me away. Well that’s interesting Dave, see and, it, it’s funny that, that, that, you’ve just blown me away, Dave, because I, like I said I never really had any problems with Wayne or, or Diane. I was basically the, the tool to get rid of Wayne and Diane. (…) I’ve, I have never been a violent … or been involved in any of that type...”

Even when Ridgen finally asks Ed Jr. directly for a denial, his first response is a refusal: “Oh, I’m not gonna say that. I mean, I, to me I don’t need to say something that is just so obvious.”. Unfortunately, he doesn’t tell us what is so obvious. Instead, he gives an alternative story that i.m.o. never amounts to a reliable denial.

Autumn said...

I didn't word the 3rd sentence in my previous comment correctly. What I meant to say is: Galick Jr. doesn't say his father said "he would do the same to me that he had already done to someone else"

The son has difficulty saying that his father told him "he'd kill me". What’s the big deal? So many people say "If you do that again I'll kill you" or something to that effect. Of course that's not a nice thing to say. But it's said in the heat of the argument and not meant seriously. Maybe the words “like” and “basically” are not a sign of minimizing but an indication that his father didn’t say that at all. Maybe that’s why it’s so difficult to say: because it’s a lie.

So what did the father actually tell the son? We know the dispute was about 7/8000 dollar on a business deal. Since the father evicted the son, I assume it was the son who owed the father this amount of money: the son had taken money for a job he didn’t realize but kept the money and wouldn’t give it back to the father. It’s just speculation but maybe the son was about to say (“he would k…”): “he would cut me out of his will”. So “basically (…) he would do the same”: the father would take money away from his son just like his son had taken away money from him. The son swallows these words? Why? Maybe it’s the motive for Wayne’s murder. Perhaps the second 2nd paragraph of the anonymous letter alludes to that: ”(…) ALTHOUGH YOU WON’T REMEMBER ME, LISA AND YOUR DELIVERY MAN JOE MOST LIKELY WILL.”

The son felt blown away by his father’s reaction in that plant that day. He describes it as: “My father took my living away from me. In one day”. He threatens to take revenge by saying “this doesn’t end here”. He says his father is all about money. So what better revenge than to take his father’s business and money away from him? If a business rival of the father is murdered, the father might be prosecuted and go to prison. He would then have to call someone (his son?) to manage the business for him.

The only words underlined in the anonymous letter are ACTON HOME PRODUCTS (MY PARTNERS AND I ARE OPENING A NEW BUSINESS SOMETIME EARLY IN THE NEW YEAR CALLED ACTON HOME PRODUCTS.). So arguably this “NEW BUSINESS” is what’s most important to the writer. Could the business name refer to SERGE: his family’s (HOME) packaging equipment (PRODUCTS) business in Acton (ACTON)?

Autumn said...

OT: Wayne Greavette

I found some SA rules about the word “basically” in the following blog posts:
- http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/02/in-teaching-statement-analysis-in-both.html
- http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/analysis-baby-sabrinas-father.html

I tried to apply these rules to the son’s statement (“I, I, like he, he basically told me he would k.., you know, he would do the same, he’d kill me”) and came to the following conclusion:

"basically" is a word used to differentiate among other thoughts. "Basically" tells us that there is more information that he is thinking of, but withholding. It is to avoid saying, "He told me he would kill me", using the additional word, "basically" (which takes more effort for the brain), going against the 'law of economy' that states the shortest sentence is best.

“He basically told me he would kill me” is not as strong as “he told me he would kill me”. By saying "basically", he is acknowledging that his father did not literally tell him “I’ll kill you". "He basically told me he would kill me", therefore, is unreliable as an account of a death threat. I.m.o. in this case the unreliability is underscored by “like” and “you know” and the hesitation with which it was said.

Later on in the interview, Galick Jr. says about the major dispute with his father:

”I just could not believe that this person would do this over money to his own son. And not even that, I mean, I have two young sons that I raise by myself, I mean, so that was my living. My father took my living away from me. In one day.”

By evicting Galick Jr. from a building he rented from his father, his father "blew me away" and “took my living away from me” = his father in essence caused him to be unable to survive = my father “basically killed me”. He thereupon told his father “this does not end here”. This is a clear threat: the son vows to take revenge. Revenge often takes the form of the harm inflicted upon the perpetrator. In this case: blow someone away, kill him and take his living (business/money) away from him. Maybe it was the son who “would do the same”. He did unto Wayne (and therewith tried to do unto his father) what he felt his father had done unto him.

Anonymous said...

Unrelated - apologies! Just putting a link to the full transcript of the BBC's interview with Prince Andrew regarding the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein in the hope that someone who's much better at Statement Analysis than me will pick some bits of it apart. It's a cheeky request, I know, but I live in hope!

Thanks, Jess

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339