Human nature is complex.
Rigid thinkers struggle in training with this, particular if personal experience is lacking.
Mixed Emotions--Conflicting Emotions
Mixed emotions are part of nature and unless artificial intelligence is able to map all the experiences of a human, from conception to birth, throughout child and adulthood, there will be no computer replacement for human analysis.
Mixed emotions are sometimes conflicted emotions.
A good example was from a terror bombing in the UK in which a teenaged girl was wounded in her leg.
Her statement showed she both adored her father and blamed him---in the same statement, with words close together.
Fathers of teenaged girls see this as not only routine, but a normal part of growing up.
For the wounded girl, her father picking her up from the concert targeted by the terrorist, at a specific time meant, in her verbalized perception of reality, he was responsible. Had he not insisted on this particular time, she would not have been wounded. He was the villain in this moment in time. It did not last long.
It is not rational, in the sense that the father had no ability to know when an Islamic terrorist would strike, yet in his daughter's perception, based upon experience, her father represents God---all knowing, all caring, and to be completely trusted.
She was, in her mind, let down by him. Why? Because she had "holes" (wounds) in her leg that 'daddy didn't save me from'----
It was actually a linguistic signal of a good, loving and attentive father. Hence, her disappointment came from a reference point.
This status of blame quickly gave way to something else.
Wounded, that he would pick her up, comfort her and transport her to professional intervention was hero status for her father. Fathers close to their daughters have shared similar conflicted emotions from their daughters in commenting on the statement.
Law enforcement professionals are often very good at grasping this element of our nature and highlighting it in language.
They see it every day.
Professionals accept human nature for what it is---they do not
attempt to change it.
Someone does something very bad, yet they know that it is not "all" that the subject is.
Rigidity brings failure in analysis.
Human nature is complex.
Here is a case from a few years ago in which a 21 year old male called 911 confessing to have killed his girlfriend. Listen to his language and follow his "linguistic disposition" towards his victim as well as towards self.
911 Dispatch
“What happened there?”
Subject (Zachery Mailloux)
“What happened there?”
Subject (Zachery Mailloux)
“Ah … pretty much lost it I guess you could say and I strangled
her,”
Note both the strength and the weakness in his assertions:
1. "I guess you could say" is a weak, with two words reducing
commitment, "guess" and "could" say.
commitment, "guess" and "could" say.
What the context of his weak assertion?
It is about
a. losing self control
b. strangling the victim
Did you notice he did not use her name?
This is distancing language.
It is appropriately employed.
It is about him 'losing' it.
He commits to: "I strangled her." On its form, this sentence is very
likely to be reliable.
Yet look at this again-----
“Ah … pretty much lost it I guess you could say
a. Who lost it? We do not know from the isolated wording because
he has dropped the pronoun "I" from his statement.
b. How weak is this assertion?
"lost it" is modified or qualified by:
"pretty much"
"I guess"
He needs to remove himself from losing self control but not from strangling her.
What does this suggest?
The analyst should consider:
a. He did not say he lost control and we need to trust the language
to guide us.
He knew what he was doing.
b. He likely believes himself justified for what he did.
"I strangled her" --- no equivocation, no ejection of the pronoun "I", and no qualification.
We believe him.
This is a very strong indication that he was in control of what he
was doing, which the evidence will likely bear out.
It indicates a need to deceive---which means that he wants to
deceive but is uncomfortable (stressed) about lying about himself
but not stressed about killing her.
This will not make sense to rigid thinkers or new student analysts.
The desire for good guy or bad guy is something that must be over-
come in analysis. For some, it is personality driven and spills into
life. These are often unforgiving, unmerciful and those with very
low human empathy. They often seek cover in religion or politics
and are, by nature, divisive.
The analyst seeks to "enter into" the verbalized perception of the
subject regardless of where it leads.
Many experienced detectives do this naturally.
Q. How do we see this natural ability?
A. We see it in their interview and interrogation strategy.
(some social service professionals are also skilled in this way).
They can "split" the personality according to the language, and trust
the language to guide them, and use it back to the subject in the
interview process. (This is highly effective here and in therapeutic
settings).
These are often professionals who are older.
Interestingly enough, this reflects the famous story by Jesus of the
stoning of the adulterous woman where Jesus said, "You without
sin, cast the first stone."
The result?
Each dropped his stone, beginning with the oldest.
Back to our case:
He appropriately (in context of his murder) did not use his victim's
name.
He seeks to avoid lying about his temper, but readily admits the
killing.
“Are you’re sure she’s dead?” the dispatcher asks.
“I am positive,” Mailloux said.
Not "yes" but "I am positive."
Why would he use these words?
The answer is found in the very weak commitment about losing
self control---
The high level of weakness indicates deception.
Not "yes" but "I am positive."
Why would he use these words?
The answer is found in the very weak commitment about losing
self control---
The high level of weakness indicates deception.
He has no doubt because he was always in control.
He allows for the recipient (Dispatch, 911, police, authorities) to
guess that someone (no "I") lost control----a sudden impulsive act
of passion (negative emotion), but he does not state it.
If he cannot state it, we will not state it for him.
This very weak assertion indicates control---in which the element
of time is present.
Time.
He is "positive" she is dead because he not only killed her, but
he made certain she was dead. The strangulation took considerable
time and control.
He allows for the recipient (Dispatch, 911, police, authorities) to
guess that someone (no "I") lost control----a sudden impulsive act
of passion (negative emotion), but he does not state it.
If he cannot state it, we will not state it for him.
This very weak assertion indicates control---in which the element
of time is present.
Time.
He is "positive" she is dead because he not only killed her, but
he made certain she was dead. The strangulation took considerable
time and control.
“Hi, this is state police. I have a caller on the line at 166 Essex
Street, Apartment B as in boy, that wants to admit to a murder that
has occurred, ah, shortly ago and the victim is a Brooke Locke …,”
the transcript begins.
Street, Apartment B as in boy, that wants to admit to a murder that
has occurred, ah, shortly ago and the victim is a Brooke Locke …,”
the transcript begins.
After ascertaining that her body is in the apartment and asking for
the caller’s name and birth date, the dispatcher continues
with the the subject.
the caller’s name and birth date, the dispatcher continues
with the the subject.
“How long has she been dead?” the dispatcher asks.
“Hour and a half maybe,” Mailloux responds.
Although the exact time is not known ("maybe"), this is likely
close to the truth though it may have even been longer.
This would indicate time to process what he has done prior
to calling.
close to the truth though it may have even been longer.
This would indicate time to process what he has done prior
to calling.
The dispatcher then tries to determine before police arrive whether
Mailloux is armed or used any weapon.
Mailloux is armed or used any weapon.
“No, I used a necktie in all honesty,” he replies.
This is an indication that not everything he says should be
believed and that he did more to her than just use a necktie on
her.
generally, or even here in this call, entirely honest.
Dispatch: “You used a necktie on her?”
Subject: “Yup.”
A casual affirmation. Consider this, again, as part of his overall
disposition towards the victim, whose name he does not use.
A casual affirmation. Consider this, again, as part of his overall
disposition towards the victim, whose name he does not use.
At one point the dispatcher asks him,
“What were you guys arguing about?”
This is interesting because instinctively, most investigators
recognize that those who commit crime will not "confess" so much
as "admit."
He issues the admission "I strangled her" but seeks to minimize
his own personal responsibility by attempting to deceive as if he
lost control.
There's more:
“What were you guys arguing about?”
This is interesting because instinctively, most investigators
recognize that those who commit crime will not "confess" so much
as "admit."
He issues the admission "I strangled her" but seeks to minimize
his own personal responsibility by attempting to deceive as if he
lost control.
There's more:
“Ah, well it’s kind of a long story and simply put she’s pretty much
been I guess you could say unfaithful. And been seeing other
people.”
Hence his justification for the murder.
The "long" story? This would take the element of time to explain--
it shows us that time is on his mind.
The Language:
been I guess you could say unfaithful. And been seeing other
people.”
Hence his justification for the murder.
The "long" story? This would take the element of time to explain--
it shows us that time is on his mind.
The Language:
He is not able to admit that she cheated on him flatly; here we see
him hedging and reducing commitment.
Note other "people" and not "men" or "guys" or anything gender
specific.
He didn't say, "she cheated on me and I lost control"---
"pretty much", and "you could say" ("you" could say it, but he
does not say she was "unfaithful."
To be "unfaithful" there must be an expectation of faithfulness as
a reference point.
Time.
Is he, via this distance, telling police that they were already
broken up prior to the murder and she had moved on?
Dispatch seems to sense it:
him hedging and reducing commitment.
Note other "people" and not "men" or "guys" or anything gender
specific.
He didn't say, "she cheated on me and I lost control"---
"pretty much", and "you could say" ("you" could say it, but he
does not say she was "unfaithful."
To be "unfaithful" there must be an expectation of faithfulness as
a reference point.
Time.
Is he, via this distance, telling police that they were already
broken up prior to the murder and she had moved on?
Dispatch seems to sense it:
“How’d you find this out?” the dispatcher asks.
“Um, well, I’ve been suspicious for a while. Everything has led up
to it and I found out through her phone and … her finally admitting
it. Yeah, I guess you could say, she finally did admit everything.”
Now we know why he is stressed on time and removing or
lessening personal responsibility:
He was humiliated.
He likely restrained her against her will, put her under control
and coerced a "confession" that she was seeing other people from
her.
He likely tortured her into this acknowledgement.
Once she admitted it, he was then justified in executing judgement
over her.
Remember---this is not reality, but his perception.
to it and I found out through her phone and … her finally admitting
it. Yeah, I guess you could say, she finally did admit everything.”
Now we know why he is stressed on time and removing or
lessening personal responsibility:
He was humiliated.
He likely restrained her against her will, put her under control
and coerced a "confession" that she was seeing other people from
her.
He likely tortured her into this acknowledgement.
Once she admitted it, he was then justified in executing judgement
over her.
Remember---this is not reality, but his perception.
“She admitted it today?” the dispatcher asks.
"Today?" the day of the murder?
"Today?" the day of the murder?
“Yup, pretty much. The only reason she did is because she felt she
had no choice because obviously her life was in jeopardy, I guess
you could say.”
had no choice because obviously her life was in jeopardy, I guess
you could say.”
Criminal activity is often found within minimizing language.
Here he uses such words as "pretty much" and "I guess you
could say..." as he will not own completely, his criminal action,
yet he gives it away with the word "obviously" which means:
accept what I say without question.
Here he uses such words as "pretty much" and "I guess you
could say..." as he will not own completely, his criminal action,
yet he gives it away with the word "obviously" which means:
accept what I say without question.
His intent was clear.
“What do you mean her life was in jeopardy?” the dispatcher asks.
“She knew that her life was in jeopardy?”
“She knew that her life was in jeopardy?”
“Yeah, she did,”
“Did she fight with you or … ?” the dispatcher inquires.
“Today not so much,”
He was in control.
The call continues for a while longer as the dispatcher tries to
determine whether Mailloux will cooperate with police when they
arrive.
determine whether Mailloux will cooperate with police when they
arrive.
“If I wasn’t cooperative, I wouldn’t have called,” the subject says.
The subject's linguistic disposition towards self is to minimize
guilt --perhaps knowing he would be caught.
In his mind,
He needs to lie about self control. This tells us that he was in
control of self and of her.
He is sensitive about time. This tells us the event was not a quick
impulse.
that he perceives her as one who deserved this end.
Here is an exert from a news article.
Compare what you read here with his language:
A police affidavit filed in the case, which was unsealed after
he was indicted by the grand jury, adds more details of what
he described happened inside the apartment during the last
hours of Locke’s life.
he was indicted by the grand jury, adds more details of what
he described happened inside the apartment during the last
hours of Locke’s life.
He told investigators that he thought he had strangled Locke to
death earlier in the day on Nov. 18 but that she regained
consciousness and he then tied her up with wire cords and duct
tape. While she remained bound during the morning hours,
he physically and sexually assaulted her, according to the
affidavit.
death earlier in the day on Nov. 18 but that she regained
consciousness and he then tied her up with wire cords and duct
tape. While she remained bound during the morning hours,
he physically and sexually assaulted her, according to the
affidavit.
In the transcript of his emergency call, Mailloux indicates that he
called two people after Locke’s death and before calling 911.
(Time)
called two people after Locke’s death and before calling 911.
(Time)
One was his cousin, and the second person was his grandmother.
“So, you admitted it to your grandmother,” the dispatcher asked.
“That is correct,” the subject responded on the 911 transcript.
“And what did she tell you?” the dispatcher inquired.
“She didn’t know what to tell me,”
The conflicting emotion here is that he admits to killing his ex girl-
friend but not confessing it.
The difference between an admission and a confession is that the
former acknowledges what was done. It is sufficient for legal
purposes.
The latter is to admit what one has done and that it was wrong,
illegal, immoral and unjustified.
He does not "confess."
In Analytical Interviewing, we seek the admission for legal
purposes, yet in social services, particularly to understand
recidivism of certain crimes, the latter.
Even while admitting killing her, the subject is "good" or "kind" to
himself.
The detective in cases like these, is very likely to (wisely) allow
the subject to blame the victim.
It is most distasteful to be part of this, yet if this is what it takes
to obtain justice, it is what is best.
Child protective investigators use this legally sound, non intrusive
method of interviewing to get child molesters to admit what
they have done by allowing the subject to relive the perverse
action.
Since the subject has empathy towards self, and none towards
the victim, the professional will allow this, without moral rebuke,
in order to facilitate the stream of information necessary to
bring legal consequence.
Conclusion:
Unless he is neglectful, it is easy for a father to see the transition
from trusting little girl to questioning teenager and the point of
mixing the two under duress. It is common.
It is not common to hear, nor always easy to grasp, especially
before an interview,
"I strangled her" with such linguistic strength, while showing
such weakness regarding the details prior to the murder.
He can own the strangulation because in his mind, she was "guilty"
of unfaithfulness to him.
He cannot own details about himself, including his relationship and
what actions he took which humiliated him.
In short, he can't say "She cheated on me" plainly, but he can say
"I strangled her."
This gives the strategy of the interview, including the tactical
questions, which experienced interviewers use.
They enter into the perceived reality of the subject and obtain
the necessary information to obtain justice.
It takes its toll upon them, but as professionals, they do this
as a service to society.
"Protect and serve" is in their DNA.
Zachery G. Mailloux was sentenced to life in prison for the murder
of Brooke Locke, a 21-year-old Husson University student on Nov.
18, 2013, in her Bangor apartment.
Mailloux pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping. In exchange for
his pleas, prosecutors dismissed a sexual assault charge.
The judge found that the crime was premeditated and the way
Locke was killed included torture, sexual abuse and extreme
cruelty.
If you wish to host a training on Deception Detection or to enroll
personally, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
The personal training is done in your home, at your own pace
and comes with 12 months of e support.
47 comments:
The first example made me cry.
The complexity always strikes me the most in cases of abused people, particularly women, who years after being abused will say that they still love the person who abused them.
It's that first example that made me think of it.
Obviously, that father was not abusive. That's not what I mean.
I mean that fathers who abuse their children can also be loving towards them - in fact, may use their position as beloved parent to make that abuse acceptable to their victim(s), and to keep them quiet. That makes the betrayal of trust even worse.
It might have to do with what you often say - that no man can abuse his own daughter.
Unformed thoughts, but I really loved this piece, Peter.
Thank you for making this invaluable method, information and analysis public.
*Graphic content*
Audio released of controlling killer outlining carefully-constructed explanation of how Breck Bednar met his end as Lewis Daynes starts life
sentence
A muderous teenager made a chilling 999 call after slitting the throat of a 14 yr-old he had groomed online. Telling operators send the police and forensics.
https://youtu.be/5zh9zS21wi8
“I am positive,”
Why did he use the word
Positive?
Positive makes me think of a POSITIVE STD
or a positive pregnancy test.
...
OT Update:
Mother of Port Clinton teen Harley Dilly speaks out after he is found dead
Snipped:
“I haven’t spoke much since the police and FBI came to tell me a body was discovered. I couldn’t, wouldn’t believe it,” Heather Dilly said in the Facebook post.
“He isn’t a runaway, or abducted, kidnapped, or missing… he is found and dead!,” Heather continued in her post. “Today we had to go make arrangements at a funeral home for our son, our 14 year old. Who made a choice. He made the choice to climb the antenna of an abandoned home, walk across a roof, to a chimney and attempted to climb down.”
“There he would of been able to view me leaving every Friday as I do running errands,” Heather continued. “The decision he made, he probably got the idea off all that ‘gaming’ he did with Fortnite. How they climb up things to go into abandoned homes to get treasures. He is gone.”
“If he was trying to run from us as some assume, why then didn’t he go farther, not across the street. He was avoiding going to school. Why we will never know, but kids do that,” Heather stated in the post. “This whole thing could NOT of been avoided.”
“You can point the finger at me, us, whatever all you want… The outcome would of been the same either way. Now you want to crucify me for telling my son to go to school, so be it… But don’t sit there and throw stones in a glass house,” Heather said in the post.
Heather’s post appears to come after an online petition was launched, calling for negligence charges to be filed against Harley’s parents.
“It has been brought to my attention that a petition is circulating on social media by Roxy Fisher who claims to be an employee of Texas Equusearch according to her Facebook employment status,” Texas Equusearch official Tim Miller said in a statement to Port Clinton Police Chief Rob Hickman in regards to the petition. “This is a misrepresentation. Ms Fisher is not nor has ever been an employee of Texas Equusearch.”
Full post below:
https://go.tiffinohio.net/2020/01/mother-of-port-clinton-teen-harley-dilly-speaks-out-after-he-is-found-dead-he-made-a-choice/#comments
OT. What a stark contrast in reward money offered for finding Harley compared to the measly grand for finding the violent perp(s) who tortured and murdered Amanda Blackburn.
OT:
Here’s something I stumbled across. Watch the short clips linked to get an overview and see the interview. I made a transcript of the interview built off both clips as they were edited differently by the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYdfvlv9pk0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrFqpmPpFw
Interviewer: How did you meet this man Joseph Galfy?
Kai: He walked up to me and said “hey you look lost, where are you headed?” I told him I`m, I`m going over to Jersey, and err, erm, he gave me a ride over to his place.
Narrator: Kai claims he was drugged and sexually assaulted and fought back in self-defence.
Kai: I sat up and I punched him in the face, and he was over the top of me, and he shoved me into the bed, and I was trying to get him away from me. I couldn’t get him away from me so I was punching him.
Interviewer: After the beating did you realise how badly he was injured or just the thought I had to get out of there?
Kai: No. I, I just, I just had to get out of there. Wh, wh, when I woke up and he was over the top of me I panicked. I didn’t realise that like he got, like…Killed. I didn’t know that.
Interviewer: Did you know he was dead?
Kai: I didn’t know that he was dead
Interviewer: This man’s ear was almost ripped off, his neck was fractured, his face was fractured.
Kai: The ear injury came from one horizontal kick, from on my back. That ought to tell you I was on my back.
Interviewer: If this was self-defence why didn’t you call the police right then and there?
Kai: I`m an illegal immigrant they aren’t, they, they, they aren’t going to investigate.
Snippet (possibly out of sequence) Kai: In this case the judge told the jury that the burden was on me to prove intoxication, and therefore self-defence, and therefore my innocence.
Interviewer: Who’s the real you? Is it Kai the hitchhiker who we saw in this video, the guy who saved the day, the guy who came to the rescue? Or is it Kai the murderer, who’s the real you?
Kai: De, definitely never Kai the murderer, I`ve never murdered anyone.
Adrian.
Interviewer: Who’s the real you? Is it Kai the hitchhiker who we saw in this video, the guy who saved the day, the guy who came to the rescue? Or is it Kai the murderer, who’s the real you?
What a monumentally stupid question!
Could someone on this board which I think is about lying or finding deception shed some light on this woman's type of lying? Does she believe her own lies? HOw is she able to come up with the lies so rapid-fire? I am hoping the experts here can shed some light on this type of lying and explain it to someone ignorant of analysis? TIA
Heroin Addict Who lies one LIe after the other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH2qIoe_yE
OT:
Reliable Denial - Unreliable Denial.
Q) If someone has been accused of xyz, and the accusation has been established by all (fighting for instance) would a denial hold up if the accused said "I didn't do "it", "it" being the offence and all know what "it" is?
Everton fan clears his name after being handed football banning order
Police claimed Jon O'Brien shouted offensive comments, but he has had the ban overturned.
An Everton fan has cleared his name after he was banned from football stadiums for an alleged foul-mouthed tirade before a Merseyside derby.
Jon O'Brien was handed the order, to run for three years, following his alleged conduct on Anfield Road while walking to Liverpool FC's stadium with friends.
Police claimed he "shouted offensive comments prior to the derby game," on December 2, 2018, and he was arrested and taken into custody.
But on Friday, the 21-year-old appeared in Liverpool Crown Court where he won his appeal against the conviction.
Today, Mr O'Brien said the police had "made up" the allegation.
And the Everton man missed the match, which Liverpool won 1-0 thanks to a dramatic late winner by striker Divock Origi.
He told the ECHO: "It (the alleged abuse) never happened.
"I'm disappointed and feel let down.
"I didn't say it."
Neither Mr O'Brien nor Merseyside Police chose to reveal what he was alleged to have said.
The force declined to respond about the successful appeal, heard before Judge David Aubrey, QC.
The Everton supporter, who goes to Blues games home and away, was also given a £850 fine at Sefton Magistrates Court.
His public order offence, for which he was convicted, will be wiped off his record.
It is understood Mr O'Brien lost his job as a tradesman because of the banning order, towards the end of his four-year apprenticeship.
The Toffees fan, who was convicted of making threatening or abusive words or behaviour, said he was keen to start going again to his club's matches.
He added: "This case has been ongoing for 14 months, with court appearances, and on the day of the match I was locked up."
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/everton-fan-clears-name-after-17598379
John,
Yes that is a reliable denial.
That was a denial TB used regarding Chi Omega.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
John,
Yes that is a reliable denial.
That was a denial TB used regarding Chi Omega.
January 20, 2020 at 3:32 PM
Hi, If memory serves me, (i may have to check) in one of Mark MCclish's (statement Analyst) books or one of his YT recordings he touch's on this topic (don't quote me, lol) the establishment once known, "IT" (accusation) stands as a possible RD.
Thank you for your reply
John,
You're quite welcome. That is wonderful that Mark has written about that specific denial, as it is reliable. Thank you for your post.
FYI: TB's denial was "I am not responsible for what happened at Chi Omega. I wasn't there. I didn't do it."
Thanks again for your info about Mark McClish book.
You guys, I NEED you to look at this statement written as a comment by Chosen Won (Tom) on his most recent video of Maddie and Jarryl--within the video is content regarding them asking Tom to take down on of the videos of Tom took of them, and also discussion of Maddie and Jarryl's youtube channel that they had just started and which is doing pretty well. Many people Tom is killing these prostitutes...I personally believe he is killing them, but I realize we must look at a statement in a nonbiased way so PLEASE HELP ANALYZE this statement. I am extremely concerned about Maddie and I have been extremely concerned about her prior to reading this comment from Chosen Won (Tom) left to Maddie on his video of her and Jarryl. Is this statement concerning??? TIA
Comment left in the past 24 hrs by Chosen Won Tom (this comment is meant for Maddie):
"Over the course of these videos, I've become increasingly concerned of the fact you may extend yourself too far.
I don't underestimate you but I get a chill at the thought you could or would be taken advantage of.
All the best, Tom."
Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTK1sqbt3yQ&t=423s
Am I crazy to think Tom is dangerous and to worry about Maddie?
Keep in mind that video as well as the one that they asked to be taken down that he refuses to take down shows where they live as well as how to get into the building as well as exactly where they sleep in the building as well as the layout of the building. Yet he is saying he gets "a chill" "thinking about her being taken advantage of".
Anon, if you haven't already perched it
I highly recommend Peter's book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peter-Hyatt/e/B00OWYBRMK
If I were you, I would transcribe her words and post them here if you have any chance of anyone looking at them for you.
You can't expect others to do your work for you.
.
You can't just analyze Chosen Won's comment?
Why is he writing something like that under the very video where Jarryl asks him to take down the video showing where they sleep?
It seems ominous to me. It's almost like his words carry a veiled message. It also occurred to me that Chosen Won refusing to take down the video showing where Jarryl and Maddie sleep, how to get in, etc OR EVEN TO edit that info out of the video could very well be due to the fact he wants to be able to spread the suspicion around if he ends up harming Maddie....like he can tell police "It wasn't me...it could have been anyone....anyone who had seen my video would know how to find them."
I ask very politely for some input about the statement he wrote to Maddie under the video in the comment section.
"Over the course of these videos, I've become increasingly concerned of the fact you may extend yourself too far.
I don't underestimate you but I get a chill at the thought you could or would be taken advantage of.
All the best, Tom."
Deandra said...
"You can't just analyze Chosen Won's comment?"
I don't know the context, but on the surface I see:
"[Over the course] of [these] videos, I've [become] [increasingly] concerned [of the fact you may] [extend] yourself [too far].
The priority in this statement is time. That is where the subject chooses to begin.
"Over the course” (passing of time) - “I've become” (change over time) – “increasingly” (changes over time).
There are many ways to build a sentence and the subject could have started with:
“I've become increasingly concerned” and then moved to “over the course” etc…
They don’t start with “I” or “I`ve”, but instead with the passing of time.
Time passing has caused a change in the subjects’ state, “I've become concerned”. They don’t say “I am concerned” but include “become” which is a reference to changes over time. In my opinion the use of language is appropriate in structure. It reveals a change of perception in the subject over a period of time.
Analysing for extra words reveals a conflict.
"Over the course of these videos, I've become increasingly concerned [of the fact] you [may] extend yourself too far.
“of the fact” – these are unnecessary words which can be removed without effecting the sentence, but the subject has included them as they are important to them. A “fact” is a thing that is known or proven to be true.
“of the [fact] you [may] extend yourself too far.”
Here we see a conflict in language. The word “fact” is connected to “may” which is inappropriate. The expected would be “possibility”. It is possible someone may extend themselves too far, but it is not a “fact” until it is proven. I ask why the word “fact” was chosen by the subject. Extra words equal extra information.
I need to go and do some work now but will try to come back and look at the rest of the statement later.
Adrian.
Off topic
A Southern California man has been sentenced to death for the sledgehammer killings of a family-of-four whose bodies were found buried in shallow graves in the California desert.
Charles 'Chase' Merritt, 62, was convicted in June of killing his former business associate Joseph McStay, 40, McStay's wife, Summer, 43, and their sons Gianni, 4, and Joseph Jr, 3.
After his sentencing on Tuesday, Merritt was transferred to San Quentin State Prison until an execution date is scheduled. California has not executed anyone on death row since 2006 as current Gov. Gavin Newsom has placed a moratorium on executions while he's in office.
The McSky family disappeared without a trace February 4, 2010 and it perplexed investigators for three years, with no signs of forced entry at their San Diego County home.
Their bodies were not found until November 2013, when an off-road motorcyclist came across them more than 100 miles away in San Bernardino County's Mojave Desert.
The McStays' skeletal remains were unearthed along with a three-pound rusted sledgehammer - believed to be the murder weapon - a bra, and a child's pants and diaper.
A year later, Merritt, who was a partner in Joseph McStay's water-fountain business, was arrested for bludgeoning the married couple and their children to death inside their home in Fallbrook because he owed them $30,000.
San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Smith upheld the jury's recommendation of death following a two-day sentencing hearing that included a flurry of last-minute motions from Merritt and his lawyer.
They accused prosecutors of misconduct, Merritt's earlier attorneys of incompetence and, on Monday, tried to remove the judge himself from the case.
He tried again on Tuesday when proceeding started an hour later because Merritt had not been transported to the court.
All of the motions were denied.
In handing down the sentence, the judge said: 'Death was the appropriate verdict for those three offense.
'The extreme violence and savagery of the nature of the killings - particularly of two small children - far outweigh the totality of all of the mitigating evidence.'
Merritt was meant to be sentenced last week Friday, but due to the series of motions and interruptions - including Merritt attempting to fire his lawyer, Rajan Maine - there was no time left after on that day to hear victims impact statements from those close to the McStay family.
However, on Friday, Patrick McStay - Joseph McStay's father - had a chance to directly address Merritt in court, calling him a 'ruthless mass murderer' and telling him, 'I hope you burn in hell'.
The victims' family members, including McStay's mother, Susan Blake, made equally emotional statements on Tuesday ahead of the sentencing being handed down, telling the court how the killings had scarred their lives.
'This despicable, evil monster. How could you beat two precious little babies? How scared were they, Chase? Crying for mommy and daddy?' Blake said. 'You had a choice. Chase, you are a low-life coward and a baby killer. Just a monster.'
Merritt showed no emotion as she said she felt like she'd been hit by a boulder when she was told the bodies were found: 'It's just a nightmare.'
Summer McStay's sister, Tracy Russell, said in a statement: 'I don't know that I can ever explain the impact this man has had on my family. We are scarred for life.
'It's been almost 10 years and the pain hasn't subsided. Our family has already received a life sentence.'
cont.
Summer's ex-husband, who she was married to for seven years, played part of the Norman Greenbaum song Spirit in the Sky, a track his ex-wife wanted played at her funeral.
'I want to psychologically mess you up,' he told Merritt. 'Every time you hear a sound in prison or in a movie similar to the sounds you made that day when you murdered this family, I hope it rings loud in your ears. And that those sounds haunt you, Chase.'
NBC reports he slammed the podium as he got frustrated.
'Come on, Chase! Aren't you tired, man? Aren't you tired? Just stop all the appeals, all the shenanigans,' he yelled. ' Don't worry, your fate will be way less tragic than of the family you murdered.'
After hearing the victim impact statements, Merritt continued to maintain his innocence. He also lashed out at prosecutors and witnesses, saying that they had framed him, and at the judge for 'allowing it to happen'.
'The thing that is bringing you this solace, is ending my life. Ending my life for a crime that I did not commit,' Merritt said.
'I loved Joseph. He was a big part of my life and my family's life. I would never hurt him in any way. I would never raise my hand to a woman or a child.
'I did not do this thing. I know you don't believe me – and that's what kills me.'
Last year during the trial, Susan Blake recounted how on February 9, 2010 - just days after it is believed the McStays were killed - Merritt came to her saying he could not reach Joseph and asked her if she had heard from him.
The day after the family-of-four were reported missing, Blake headed over to her son's home in Fallbrook looking for any clues to what had happened to them.
She found the residence reeking of rotten food, mildew and dirty diapers, and crawling with maggots.
With the permission of a police detective, Blake said she cleaned up the kitchen.
The mother also revealed that she wrote more than $5,400 in personal checks to Merritt to help carry on her son's water fountain business, but she said customers were complaining that their orders were not being fulfilled.
She described one heated meeting with Merritt and their third partner, Daniel Kavanaugh, which she said turned into a 'scary' shouting match.
'He [Merritt] wanted money and Dan didn't want to put out any,' she said.
The defense previously suggested Kavanaugh was the real killer.
Attorney Rajan Maline said in his opening statement Monday that Kavanaugh stole $7,900 from McStay's account in the days after the family vanished 'because he knew Joseph wasn't coming back.'
San Bernardino County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Sean Daugherty told jurors Monday that Merritt wrote checks for more than $21,000 on his dead partner's online bookkeeping account after the family was last seen alive in February 2010.
'Greed, and greed's child, fraud' were the motive, Daugherty argued.
The prosecutor claimed that Merritt 'desperately tried to cover his tracks after the murders, misled investigators, talked in circles, and played the victim.'
cont.
Daugherty showed the jurors images of the family and described how wild animals tore at their decomposing remains in their shallow graves near Victorville, where in November 2013 a motorcyclist finally discovered them.
Investigators have said they spoke with Joseph's business partner, Merritt, shortly after the family went missing and noticed he referred to them in the past tense.
They also have said a customer service representative told them he received a call about McStay's QuickBooks account, which he used to pay vendors connected to his water features business, after he vanished.
The call, according to authorities, was placed from Merritt's cellphone on February 6, 2010, near the location in the desert where the family's skeletal remains would later be found.
Merritt served time in prison for burglary and receiving stolen property in the 1970s and 80, reported the Los Angeles Times.
In 2001, he pleaded no contest to burglary and grand theft, earning him a six-month stint in jail followed by probation.
Eventually, he was hired by Joseph McStay's company, Earth Inspired Products, to design decorative water fountains, but his troubles continued as he racked up gambling debts and more than $20,000 in unpaid taxes, according to court documents.
McStay's other business partner, Daniel Kavanaugh, told investigators that Joseph had planned to fire Merritt before he went missing with his family.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7913499/California-man-sentenced-death-killing-family-4.html
Frommindtomatter,
Thank you!
Excellent analysis—the change in perception of the subject over time & most interestingly, the conflict in language you pointed out involving the contrast between the terms “the fact that” and “may”....I am wondering if there is something ominous about him using the term “the fact that”.
Also what do you make of his saying “you may EXTEND YOURSELF” too far? What do you think he means by the term “extend yourself” too far? I am wondering if he is expressing a type of jealousy towards her being with men during prostitution activities?
Please when you get time can you analyze the rest of the statement? I am very concerned about Maddie—I believe C.W is a serial killer.
OT
I called Nick Cannon a pedo when he married and had twins with Mariah Carey.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nick-cannon-orlando-brown-sexual-relationship-004230459.html
Nick Cannon responds to Orlando Brown's claim they had a sexual relationship.
Nick Cannon said he's "praying" for Orlando Brown after the actor alleged they had a sexual encounter.
In a video that went viral, Brown, best known for his roles in Major Payne and That's So Raven, talked about letting "Nick" perform oral sex on him. The clip was eventually posted on The Shade Room and called out Nick Cannon. After a few media outlets picked up the story, Cannon reacted on social media.
Mariah Carey's ex-husband laughed off Brown's claim in a lengthy Instagram post before addressing serious issues he sees within the "demonic" entertainment industry. Cannon shared a screenshot of a headline that read, "Orlando Brown Claims Nick Cannon Gave Him Oral Sex."
"When I first saw this I thought it was f****** hilarious," Cannon began. "But then after putting a little cognitive effort and analytical thought to the situation,I figured what a great opportunity for a 'teachable moment'!"
Cannon continued, "First off let me say I am praying for the young brother Orlando even though I don’t really know him personally, I have always loved and enjoyed his talent and have been a fan of his past work."
The Wild 'N Out host said Brown, 32, is another "example of when we allow our young artists to be prematurely exposed by this demonic business and left out to fend for themselves."
"We need better support systems for our youth and take care of our own," Cannon wrote. "I watched various of this young brothers videos and all I see is a cry out for help."
Brown has a troubled history. In January 2018, he was arrested for battery after police responded to a family disturbance call. Four months later, he was hauled in on drug charges, for resisting arrest and obstructing a public officer. In September 2018, he was arrested for burglary. During a bizarre interview with Dr. Phil that December, the child actor admitted to drinking a lot, heavily medicating with marijuana and taking crystal meth.
"So I don’t know if there are any real leaders or solid individuals in this young man’s life but let’s embrace him and tighten him up so he doesn’t become another lost victim to these hollywood circumstances," Cannon said, adding, "this actually hurts my heart to see that we have allowed Orlando, along with various other young gifted performers we grew up loving, to just dwindle away after these corporations made their billions off of them."
He continued, "Now due to substance abuse and diagnosed psychiatric disorders our loved ones are now aimlessly begging for the attention they were once given , instead of the help they actually need. All while we sit back and just laugh."
The former America's Got Talent host wrote that "the most irresponsible parties involved in all of this" is the media.
"For us to continue to post slander and tear one another down for click bait to make these white supremacy propagated platforms more money is asinine and deplorable," he noted. "These cannibalistic tactics only destroy 'Us'. Really, in post like this, who wins??? We might chuckle, joke, pass the gossip on through our low frequency vibrations but does it truly make you feel good??? Especially knowing that there are higher powers looking down at you."
Cannon concluded by tagging three outlets who posted Brown's video, writing, "I hold [you] accountable!" The outlet that posted the story Cannon took a screenshot of, iHeartRadio, removed the story.
The television personality was praised for his response.
"Preach!!" Saturday Night Live's Kenan Thompson wrote.
"Grown man response!!!!!!! Great job Nick and God bless u," added NFL legend Deion Sanders.
Deandra said...
“Please when you get time can you analyze the rest of the statement?”
I [don't] underestimate you [but] I get a chill at the thought you could or would be taken advantage of.
“I [don't] underestimate you” – Said in the negative doubling its importance. It is followed with the word “but” which weakens commitment to the words that come before it. The need to tell someone you “don’t underestimate” them reveals sensitivity. Why would you need to tell someone you don’t underestimate them? If you genuinely don’t underestimate them those words would not enter the language. The subject reveals a lack of confidence in the person they are talking about. This must be connected to something, but without greater context I do not know what.
“[I get a chill at the thought] you [could] or [would] be [taken advantage] of.”
The subject has a “thought” which causes them to get a chill. What is “the” thought? We know that this thought must be specific and personal to the subject. What is it they see happening in their thought? “Chill” is obviously negative as opposed to a warm.
“[could] or [would] be taken [advantage] of.”
“could” offers a possibility of something occurring, and is appropriately weak language when someone is unsure of a particular outcome. As in “I could win the lottery”. The subject adds to “could” and gives an option “or [would] be taken advantage of”. The “would” speaks to something which is future conditional. They are suggesting that if certain conditions are met in the future (presumably via the person’s actions or behaviour) they may be taken advantage of. What kind of “advantage of” I don’t know, but it will be connected to the “thought” the subject mentioned earlier in the statement.
I don’t see anything sinister in the subjects’ statement. Their words will be based on their knowledge of the person and their behaviour. It is clear they feel the persons actions would result in them being taken advantage of (whatever their personal dictionary means in relation to that) if certain conditions are met.
What leads you to believe this person is a serial killer? Is he connected with the victims?
Adrian.
Adrian, That is a wonderful breakdown of his statement. I fear that the statement may be a type of veiled threat reflecting Tom’s jealousy that Maddie has become the “star” of Maddie & Jarryl’s new channel & is no longer material for his channel. Plus he is scared to go back into Detroit bc he thinks the Detroit cops are watching him when he goes there to interview the women. He is very much connected to the women who have been killed. See for yourself:
RIP NICOLE
1999 (approximately): Nicole begins working the streets to support her drug habit.
2016, November 13: Nicole is interviewed by TR.
2016, December: Nicole's body is found along railroad tracks
RIP PENNY
1996 (approximately): Penny begins working the streets to support her drug habit.
2016, August 28: Penny is interviewed by TR.
2017, April 28: Penny is pronounced dead after being in a coma due to being beat.
RIP ANGEL
2002 (approximately): Angel begins working the streets to support her drug habit.
2017, July: Angel is interviewed by TR twice.
2017, July: Angel's body is found with a needle in her arm, despite not using heroin (death ruled a homicide).
RIP KELLEY
1998 (approximately): Kelley begins working the streets to support her drug habit.
2018, August 02: Kelley is interviewed by TR.
2018, September 20: Kelley is pronounced dead / cause of death undisclosed.
RIP MONICA
2012 (approximately): Monica begins working the streets to support her drug habit.
2019, May 07: Monica is interviewed by TR.
2019, May 31: Monica's body is found at an intersection.
Hi Deandra,
You certainly have done your homework on the guy. He does have a connection to the victims. What is he getting from interviewing these women? Whats his motive?
Adrian.
'I did not do this thing. I know you don't believe me – and that's what kills me.'
Embedded confession? " And that's what kills. Me."
Adrian,
Someone else on youtube compiled the list.
Tom is a perv who used to frequent prostitutes, speaks violently about women, had a porn addiction, has been mentally institutionalized multiple times, and according to someone on youtube, shot his wife (she is still alive) many years ago. Oh and he has said he has a sex addiction. Youtube pays him for the views he gets on his youtube channel. I hope this info helps in profiling him. One prostitute that Tom has interviewed has commented recently on a petition against him that he has used her services.
Google "stop Chosen Won" and you can see all the comments about Chosen Won under the petition.
Off Topic: I believe China is lying about the coronavirus--I believe it attacks the central nervous system as well as respiratory....otherwise people would not be having seizures from it. Also they are lying about the number of ill and dead patients.
Stay safe people. Use good handwashing practices. Don't bother getting a mask as it can be transferred through the eyes (like most viruses--crazy how they are acting "shocked" by that fact). Don't trust the info coming out. So many lies going on.
OT:
Statement Analysis 101, whats said in the negative.
When someone says it's not about this it's not about that, you can be sure that's exactly what it's about.
Iris, 80: "I can't wait to wed Egyptian toyboy, 35 - there's no way he's after my money"
EXCLUSIVE: Iris Jones fell for jobless Mohamed Ahmed Irbriham on Facebook and fell into his arms the first time they met.
Snipped:
Iris lives on £200-a-week pension and disability benefit. A former cleaner, she has a £220,000 bungalow.
Mohamed, meanwhile, has little savings after quitting his job when his boss refused to give him time off for Iris’s visit. But the Romeo, from Giza, insists he is not interested in Iris for material gain.
He says: “This is not about money. Money is not everything. It cannot buy you happiness.
"Love has no age and knows no limits. Iris and I found we understood each other well and felt the tenderness. I do not care about anyone’s opinion – only what feels good to me.
“Iris is wonderful, understanding and compassionate. We share the same views about lots of things. I’m not interested
in Iris’s money.
I work as a quality inspector in the field of welding materials and travelled to many countries.
“It is not right people look at everything through materialism. If they do, they have no feelings.”
Much more in link:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pensioner-80-insists-35-year-21360368?fbclid=IwAR2rgufGFY-506wEaBSSdeIAuNjoYBys0fpkGxvv_EO0n0_WEyrIG_tiZoM
Blogger John Mc Gowan said...
OT:
lol, he has checked off all the "not looking for" money, house, passport.
Beijing is using AIDS drugs to treat coronavirus patients...that must mean that the virus is hijacking cell DNA to help it disguise itself once within the human body...it means the virus is using cell DNA to "hide" it's presence in the human body. This makes it impossible for the human immune system to recognize the presence of the virus in order to fight it. That is my understanding of how the HIV virus works once it is within a human body. It is only my opinion, I would think this would also allow rapid and virulent mutation of the virus itself within the human population.
I think that is what is going on is that it may be a mutation of the HIV virus itself...in terms of how it is transmitted and also in terms of extreme virulence and also in terms of resolution as the body in some cases seems to fight it off and "resolve" the issue...isn't that how most AIDS patients ended up dying is from pneumonia? Also coronavirus causes liver and kidney dysfunction. It sounds like a mutation of HIV.
Also Chinese doctors are saying some patients with the pneumonia do not have fevers...pneumonia always produces a high fever--it will spike several days into it and then drop about 7 degrees overnight...the fact that there is no fever at any point in some of the patients means the body is not recognizing it has pneumonia.
Another oddity, viral pneumonia is always less severe than bacterial pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia, however, is much less contagious than viral pneumonia. IMO, yes this is a virus that maybe is somehow producing bacteria once within the body. It is, at the same time, disguising the pneumonia from the immune system,
The Beijjing doctos are very smart to be giving AIDS drugs to their patients with coronavirus...like HIV it must be causes bacterial infection within the lungs.
I know more about pneumonia than most doctors BTW.
Peter, before Kobe Bryant gets turned into a martyr, I would urge you to analyze his statements and his accusers statements from Hughes rape case in 2003
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-bryants-disturbing-rape-case-the-dna-evidence-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession
The NBA legend has received a hero’s sendoff during his final season. But there’s one incident that will always taint Bryant’s career.
Kobe Bryant
The woman had filed a separate civil suit against Bryant, and had agreed to dismissal of the sexual assault charge against him provided the athlete issue the following apology to his accuser, which was read in court by Bryant’s attorney:
First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.
---
the accusers statement
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-bryants-disturbing-rape-case-the-dna-evidence-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession
-David
Anonymous said...
Peter, before Kobe Bryant gets turned into a martyr, I would urge you to analyze his statements and his accusers statements from Hughes rape case in 2003
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-bryants-disturbing-rape-case-the-dna-evidence-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession
January 26, 2020 at 6:47 PM
I analyzed some of it years ago and the team yesterday. Forthcoming.
Peter
Wow, I was right...crazy how I can sometimes "see" into things...I am really understanding what my real Dad told me now more than ever...
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf
Just released today: Indian researchers find there are strains of HIV in the coronavirus never before seen in a coronavirus...I knew it was disguising itself from the immune system....I said the virus was somehow combined with HIV in earlier post...how did I know that? It's like I could just "see" it.
Here is the link to the Paper from Indian scientists released today
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf
What Amber Heard told Johnny Depp during 'informal' two-hour therapy session day after actress 'hit' Pirates of the Caribbean star
Johnny Depp: I'm not going be in a physical f**king altercation with you.
Amber Heard: Don't. Then don't.
JD: You f**king hit me last night. You f**king…
AH: What about all the other times you split? C'mon you cannot act like that's about that.
JD: Well on a plane, I can't split.
AH: No, and you hit back. So don't act like you don't f**king participate.
JD: I pushed you.
AH: I'm not going to get into the details of that fight. You and I both know that you split when there is no physical violence involved and that you do it... like at the very beginning of fights these days. And if you split and you go into a different room and you don't actually leave that house, it does nothing but perpetuate the fight and you don't actually do it respectfully.
JD: You were f**king screaming at me.
AH: I'm not going to validate my actions last night. I feel very bad about what I did.
JD: No, I'm talking about Toronto.
AH: I did not start screaming until you had f**king said all the s**t - you poke an animal enough, it is eventually, it doesn't matter how friendly it is, it's not cool.
JD: That's not true. It's the same for me, it's the same for me.
AH: I stayed cool for so long and you kicked and kicked and kicked.
JD: I need the same things but when you start flipping out, and I can't get a word in, and it's manic and angry, what the f**k Amber?
AH: I get angry. I'm human. This is the kind of situation when one gets angry.
JD: Just try. Let's both try. If there's anger, if there's something really, really poking us in the a** let's try not to f**king fight. Try to address it without jumping down each other's throats because all that's gonna do is build a mountain of f**king, uh, resentment, some species of f**king hatred.
AH: You take me for granted.
JD: It's not true. It's not true. I'm not the one who throws pots and whatever the f**king else at me.
AH: That's different. That's different. One does not negate the other. That's irrelevant. That's a complete non sequitur. Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you cannot come and knock on my door.
JD: Vases and f**king...
AH: Just because there are vases does not mean that you come and knock on the door.
JD: Really, I should just let you throw?
AH: No, I'm not saying that. You're saying that. You're putting words in my mouth.
JD: The only time I ever threw anything at you was when you f**king threw the cans at me in Australia.
AH: Why are you trying to justify who throws things based on whether or not you come knocking on the door? I don't get why one informs the other.
JD: Because that is a f**king irrational and violent f**king maneuver. So a man would want to get out of that area so that he doesn't get so f**king angry that he actually does pop the f**king wife.
JD: You're just afraid that the truth will come out.
AH: What truth?
JD: That you lied. No, I said to you, tell Travis what you just did, did you punch me in the f**king jaw.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html
Mom of 2 missing Idaho children misses court deadline to bring kids to police
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/31/lori-vallow-fails-produce-children-idaho-authorities-deadline/4620227002/
Last one with the boy. Her story has changed repeatedly. She makes it all about her and she repeatedly says Gannon is dead.
https://www.kktv.com/video?vid=567472312
Mr. Hyatt, please do an analysis of Fotis Doulos suicide note.
He is the one accused of killing his wife (never found)
The suicide note is available online with his writting and its very interesting to analyze.
Regards
christina
https://nypost.com/2020/02/01/suicide-note-reveals-final-words-of-alleged-wife-killer-fotis-dulos/
https://news.sky.com/story/happy-brexit-day-poster-telling-people-to-speak-english-reported-to-police-11924342
"We" is used. The author does not place themselves in the statement with "I".
Language used indicates older author (50+)?
Not proof read, indicates one author "one rule to that needs to", "and the the Queens English"
The title is "Happy Brexit Day" like "Happy Birthday" its not something expected in a threatening letter. Does the author expect a different type of audience?
Soft language and use of inclusive language "Our", female author?
Inclusion of language to convince reader they are a far right xenophobe but comes across as a caricature. "Queens English", "great island", "God save the Queen", "True patriots". Also the use of this language indicates the author is not an immigrant themselves.
Absence of expected racist language. The author is not racist and is careful not to use offensive language.
Post a Comment