Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Tara Reade Interview Analyzed

               

hat tip to Hey Jude for transcription of interview 


             Sexual Assault and Harassment Cases 


These are amongst the most challenging and complicated for us due to:

1. The complexity of Sex (subjectivity in language, perception)

2.  shame, embarrassment, resentment, fear, etc of the victim. Also a highly defensive posture if the subject has not been believed or fears not being believed. This is why our focus must be primarily the event, itself.  

3.  The passage of time and impact upon repeated telling of the account.  This is a vast element within itself. 

4. Illicit or Mixed motives---- fame seeking, money, revenge, politics, etc, can combine with genuine motive of justice to bring out truth. The subject may have an illicit motive, yet still tell the truth. 

5. Mental health issues--including issues stemming from trauma, childhood, physical health, medications, etc. 

6. Having to discern and separate truth from fabrication.  This leads us to focus in upon the sentences most closely. 

7. Elements of psychological denial that can emerge in the language. 


8. Cultural pressures

At one time, it was a cultural pressure for women to not report such things.  This pendulum now swung violently to the illogical  "believe the woman", which perverted justice.  Championed in media and Hollywood, it has now met a new adversity in that it is no longer a convenient form of deception.  

What if the subject was "a jerk" to her and she perceived this as an assault?

What if the subject is exaggerating due to feelings of rejection? 

What if the subject was truthful about the event, but deceitful about what led up to it, what happened afterwards, or why she is coming forward?

Sexual assault is "personal", meaning in statement analysis, that "he did this to me", rather than "this happened..."  

To the victim: A sexual assault isn't against society or against a faceless victim. In verbalizing what happened, we look for linguistic commitment. Later, the subject may have a motive of protecting society (unknown individuals), but during the alleged assault itself, reliable reports are "personal"----against the subject done by a specific perpetrator.  


Sometimes, the denial is the most reliable source for us.  

This isn't always the case, but it can be a useful guide. 

The subject that issues a reliable denial and "stands behind the psychological wall of truth" gives us our best understanding of actual, rather than judicial innocence.  

With complexity in mind, we may find unreliable and even deceptive portions, yet the alleged event is analyzed for commitment.  

The interviewer did a poor job.  The form of "the event" cannot be measured in total due to the interviewer's contamination.  

The interview puts much priority into the report that the subject made, more than the critical, "what happened."  

Due to the excessive length and contamination, the analysis will focus upon the event and seek to answer the question:

Would the subject pass a polygraph about the alleged sexual assault? 



KH:  So, Tara Reade, thank you so much for talking to me - where would you like to start?  Where does the story start for you?

Note the use of "story" in the language of the interviewer. Note that the word "start"  is repeated.  

Best is, "Tell us what happened" and allow the subject to choose her own words. 

TR:  Um, well, the story starts when I went to work for Joe Biden.  That was, um, in uh ninety-two, and so I was hired um, that fall.  The year that Bill Clinton uh was nominated as our president, so I was in - uh before that, I was - out west, and I had worked on a congressional race, um, before I was working in politics, I was um, an actress and a model, and I had studied classically, I really loved the arts, and I come from a family of - arts, and activists, and what not.  Um, and then I got interested in college, in political science, and I went and interned for Leon Panneta, when he was a congressman, and worked on an animal rights issue that ended up being, um, put into law, and signed into law, so it was very exciting and it was a very successful experience and then um, when I applied for Joe Biden’s office I had a phone interview -  and then they, um, offered for an intermediate person, and then I went out to DC, and I interviewed in person, and when I was there, uh, the scheduler interviewed me, and uh, Joe Biden happened to walk - breeze past, and he uh saw me, and uh, she introduced me, and we were in the inner kind of alcove office, and uh, he asked me my name - I told him and he said, oh, that’s a good Irish name, and she offfered to him, “hey, she worked as an intern for Leon Panetta”,- and then he’s, “Oh, he’s a good guy”, and he looked back and smiled at me and said, “Hire her.”  And then, Whahay, and the scheduler looked at me and said, “I guess you’re hired.” 

This is a very lengthy introduction and is likely related to her motive for coming forward.  

Consider also that the subject may be shifting blame for her coming in contact with Joe Biden.  

KH:  What was the position for?

Better is, "Continue..." By asking about a specific position, the interviewer has now artificially lengthened the introduction.  We saw how the word "story" was reflective, influencing the subject, and now the form of "what happened" is contaminated.  

TR:  it was for a staff assistant position, so I, um, you know, pretty low on the totem pole, but you’re like able to work through it, so I was working with , um the interns, so I supervised the intern program, and made sure, like, you know, all the Mail was distributed, most of the interns did that - and trained them, and worked for legislative aides - I would like help, go to a hearing and take notes, or write something.

KH:  So like, sort of fun?



TR: Yeah, so it was sort of like you just did what you had to do - all hands on decks, sort of.

KH:  And you were how old at this point?

TR:  Mid-twenties.

KH:  And how long did you work for Biden, in total?

TR:  Nine months.

KH:  You um, would later come forward, after Lucy Flores came forward about something that happened in ninety-three.

TR: Yes, and I actually did come forward um, in ninety-three, but not to the press, but I went through protocol and complaint.

KH:  What was your complaint about?

A good question to ask, using the subject's own language. 

TR:  Sexual harassment.  Um,  I did not uh - complain formally about the other piece of what happened, that I’ll talk about in a few minutes, 

likely influenced by recent press reports 


but um, I talked about what was witnessed, um, and eh - the general atmosphere of the office, the way I was treated, ‘cause I would see him at meetings, and he would basically put his hands on me, put his hands on my shoulder, run his finger on my neck, he was very, like, handsy, with a lot of people - but like with - it - it’s like what I had - and I had said this in the press, before, from the last time, um, it - he made me feel like an inanimate object - I didn’t feel like a person.   He - he didn’t like make conversation with me, or talk with me, or ask me - anything - relevant - it was just - you know.  It, it was definitely that kind of vibe, so it was uncomfortable.  


note "what was witnessed" is passive.  Is it appropriately so, in that she does not have the witnesses to come forward?

"the way I was treated" is stronger, personal. This is a descriptive term of perspective.  

What he "would" do "basically" is not a commitment to what happened. She appears to be addressing the pre allegation event time period. 

She reports what he "didn't" do----- he didn't make conversation with her.  

Did the subject feel objectified? 

So, it was really after that incident when I walked in and everyone was arguing. I was called into the office, and I was very nervous ‘cause I thought I did something wrong, like I remember feeling almost sick to my stomach nervous, like, you know, this was a big deal getting called in rather than them just coming and talking to me. 

This is common for both embedded admissions and is consistent with the guilt that sexual assault victims experience.  It should be noted, but not isolated. 



 When I walked in people’s voices were raised, they were arguing, and that - there was a legislative assistant, she’s a senior aide, um, she worked on women’s issues, I believe, among other issues. I know judiciary issues, for sure, but anyway, she turned to me, and she um, said, the senator thinks that you have - um, that you’re pretty, and that you have nice legs, he wants you to serve drinks at this  fundraising event, and you don’t have to do that, Tara, you know - that’s not part of your job. 

And then the scheduler came in right after, she kinda interrupted her in the middle of what she was saying, and then said whatever she said, and I can’t remember everything that was exchanged, 

appropriate given the passage of time 

but basically everyone kinda looked at me, and I just froze, ‘cause I didn’t know - what to say to anybody, and um, it was uncomfortable, and I knew that no matter what I decided to do, um I was gonna either, you know, make my - my immediate supervisor very unhappy, or I was gonna look bad in the eyes of this person, the legislative- you know, assistant, he was sticking up for me obviously, and didn’t think I should be objectified - so it was - it was a strange position to be in, and I just left - I didn’t say anything, actually, and um, I called my mom, and she was very adamant that I document it and file a report, and she said, you know, and her exact words were - I remember because we got into like a little bit of an argument about it, she said, um, “You just march in there and you tell them this is sexual harassment, and you know, and you file a complaint.”  And I tried to explain to my mother that wasn’t easy, you couldn’t just march into Ted Kaufman’s office, that’s Chief of Staff, and that there was a protocol, and there was a way to do that - and my mother was very, um, she just said, you know, you tend to be a little passive sometimes, you know, sometimes you stick up for yourself, but sometimes, you know, you let people take advantage of you, you need to stand up, and you need to address this.

So I already kind of had those feelings, but at that point I knew I wanted to look at taking some action, so I did it, a non-formal thing by just going to my supervisor - that’s when I was met with some of her attitude about the whole thing.  Like, why wasn’t I complimented?  You know, you know, that people would be flattered to be liked by Joe Biden - you know, basically she was also   admonishing me to keep my head down if I wanted to last   - she said that a couple of times,  and um, she took me in the hallway a couple of times and just was very, you know, kinda chewed me out a few times.  

Um, nothing was in writing but the timeframe for me, from this event to when I met him with the gym bag and the incident, is compressed for me, and I don’t know like how much time passed, but I do know a couple of things happened between those two events.  One of them that was significant, was being told I had to dress differently, and that I was too provocative, and that was by the assistant, and by the scheduler, and uh, they were finding fault with my work all the time - like every little thing, and it was almost to the point where three or four times a day there would be something - something  - something wrong.  

And my mother, I called my mom one day in tears, you know, and she was like, you know, this is retaliation, they know that you want to file something, you know, you’ve already - you’re going through the motions - ‘cause I - I had gone as far as  to talk to Dennis [?]  who was the next person up after [redacted at source] um, and Dennis [?] was then below Ted Kaufman, and it was just like this protocol you followed, and uh, I eventually did talk to Ted Kaufman, um, and Dennis [?] and [redacted] then [redacted] wasn’t even talking to me anymore, they - they -  it was Dennis [?] who dealt with me.

You know, up to this point, working for Biden had been kind of tense.  His public persona’s very different from what’s it’s like to work - it’s more like working for a corporation,  it’s very um, top down, and it’s very um, tense, and uh - he’s not - he doesn’t treat his staff that well.  So, my opinion, that was my experience of it, and some other people that were complaining about it.  I would leave abruptly.  In fact the position that I had, they were having trouble keeping a person in it - um, so I don’t know what that’s about, but that’s one of the things at the interview they made clear, is that people kept leaving, and that they wanted me to stay, and asked me if I had plans to stay, and I said yes, but I wanted to make a career on The Hill, and that I’d eventually like to run for office some day.  

KH:  Uhum.

You know, that was my - and when I came in, it was at this beautiful time,  before all the scandals, before the impeachment, and this was when he first was president, I got to go to the Inauguration, I got to go to the Inaugural Balls because I was working for Senator Biden, and it was this magical time in a sense, I walked  the Bridge of Hope, got to meet Mae Angelou, which is one of the highlights of my life, and it was just amazing, and - and wonderful - so I, I was like a puppy with enthusiasm, you know, it was a dream job.  I was so happy to be there.

So I just went in with the attitude of doing everything I could to be - you know, a good employee, to be there, and I was very excited and honoured to be there.  

KH:  And so did you serve drinks at that event? 

TR:  I did not.  

KH:  okay, so - okay. 

TR:  It kind of just went away.  I - I said no, and then, when I said no, there was - I sort of got  attitude about it, and then.  I pushed back on another thing that had nothing to do with um, you know, sexual harassment, I pushed back about the intern program, because I was given a stack, by Ted Kaufman, the Chief of Staff, of resumes, and he told me, he directed me, firmly, to hire DuPont employees’ children, only.

KH:  Wow.

far off topic of sexual assault 

TR:  And I pushed back, and I said, I wanna hire - we need more diversity, and I wanna hire some women, and I wanna hire from other places. Like, you hired me, and then, after this whole conversation I was like, how did I get hired, I’m not from Delaware? I’m from West [?], like, right. So.um, so he said fifty percent, so he relented, fifty percent, and it was still just strange, so I’d have these interns that were more diverse and working class, and then I had these really privileged um, interns.  So, it was, that kind of stuff was happening, so there was like regular work challenges happening, right.

KH:  so how much interaction did you have with Biden?

TR:  I would s.. - well, it’s -   ‘cause I was there, I would see him, um, on and off, quite a bit, but wouldn’t necessarily talk with him.  He was always breezing out, breezing in with his  - people that would stay around him, usually the upper level staff, um, and they usually kind of kept right with him, so, um, but once in a while I would see him, and he would just do that thing that guys do, you know when they look you up and down and smile and stuff, it just was obnoxious.  I mean, I - and back then, I just accepted it for what it was.  When I talked about this discomfort that I had, I was really timid about it. 

much time has passed for self reflection; she may have sought professional help over the many years since working for Biden. 


I found myself getting more and more like, withdrawn and timid about um, speaking out, because of the atmosphere,  and because [redacted] was so closed down about hearing about it.  She would just be like, you know, one of the things she said to me was, you know, the Senator likes you, most women would really like that attention, and she goes, I don’t understand your attitude, like what is the problem?  

So, it was, it was, you know, I definitely felt um, feeling like I didn’t belong there - it definitely wasn’t a progressive office. 

Agenda noted 

 Definitely not like that then - I don’t know what it would be like now, but um, I, then, the incident when I talked about the discomfort, I was just told to do what I was told, and um, and it wasn’t long after that [redacted] called me in and said, I want you to take this to Joe - he wants it, he wants you to bring it - hurry.  And I said, okay, it was a gym bag, she said, take the gym bag - she called it athletic bag, and um, yeah, she said he was down towards the Capitol, and he’ll meet you.  And so I went down, and I was heading down towards there, and he was at first talking to someone, I could see him at a distance, and then they went away, and then, um, we were in like the side - it was like the side area, and um — he was, he just said, “Hey, come here, Tara”, and I like handed him the thing, and he greeted me, he remembered my name, and then, we were alone and it was the strangest thing. 

the form of the statement cannot be measured in total as it is altered by the interviewer.  

"we" (unity) is while being alone with Biden before the event. 




 There was no like, exchange, really, he just had me up against the wall, and, Um - I was wearing like a skirt, and you know, it was a skirt, but I wasn’t wearing stockings, it was kind of a hot day that day, and I was wearing heels, and I remember my legs had been hurting from the marble, you know, of the Capitol, like walking - so I remember that kind of stuff, I remember like, that, and there was kind of an unusually warm day, and I remember I was wearing a blouse, and he just had me up against the wall, and the wall was cold, and I remember he - it happened all at once.  The gym bag, I don’t know where it went, I handed it to him, it was gone and his hands were on me and underneath my clothes - and um, yeah. -   he went - he went down my skirt but then up inside it, and he - uh, penetrated me with his fingers, and um, I - uh - he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying something to me. 

She reliably reports the physical contact in the above emboldened sentences.  


He said several things.  I can’t remember everything he said - I remember a couple of things. I remember him saying, first, as he was doing it - do you wanna go somewhere else?  And then him saying to me when I pulled away, he um - got finished doing what he was doing, and I pulled back, and he said, “Come on, man, I heard you liked me.”  

This is consistent with his language--- it is used by him frequently, to this day and is  on videos of his current campaign. 


And, um - it’s that phrase stayed with me because I kept thinking what I might have said, and I can’t remember exactly if he said, “I thought” or “I heard”, but it’s like he implied like that I had done this - like, I don’t know, and for me, it was like everything - everything shattered in that moment, because I knew, like, we were alone

she returns and uses "we" again, specifically about being alone with Biden.  She twice united herself with Biden specifically about being alone with him.  This was likely very important to her, particularly in expectation. (see conclusion) 

This is a very important paragraph: 

it was over , right, He wasn’t like trying to do anything more, but it’s - I looked up to him, he was like my father’s age, he was this champion of women’s rights, in my eyes, and I couldn’t believe it was happening, it seemed surreal -and I just - I knew, I just felt sick, because he - when he pulled back he looked annoyed, and he said um, something else to me that I don’t want to say, and then he said - I must have looked shocked, and he grabbed me by the shoulders - I don’t know how I looked, but I must have looked something, because he grabbed me by the shoulders and he said, you’re okay, you’re fine, you’re okay, you’re fine - and then, um, he walked away

This is very likely a feeling of abandonment or even humiliation. 

There is no "we" (unity) in the description post event. 

 She was unified with him in likely wanting to be alone with him, but no longer  unified after the physical contact.  

The location of the emotions is appropriate due to the passing of many years and the repeating of the account. 

Much here is perception: 


and he went on with his day and what I remember next is being in the Russell building, like where the big windows are, and the stairs, by myself - and my body, I was shaking everywhere, because it was cold all of a sudden, and I was - I don’t know,  I felt like I was shaking, just everywhere, and I was trying to grasp what had just happened and what I should do, or what I should say, but I knew it was bad because he was so angry, like when he left, like I could feel -  you know how when you know someone is angry, they don’t have to say anything, like he smiles when he’s angry, and you can just feel it emanating from him, like.  

Right, so then I went home and um, I called my mom, because, um, I didn’t know who else to call, and she was wanting me to go  make a police report like right then, my mom was very adamant that I do that, and um, very strong about me doing that, and I said, no, and we had like an argument about it, um, and I said, mom, you can’t do that. and she had known about the other stuff, and had encouraged me to document it, which I did, and go to the protocol about the -  sexual harassment, and after this incident I did follow her instructions and do that part, but I didn’t talk about what happened, I was too -  I tried to bring it up to [redacted] later, and she just wouldn’t hear it, she like shut me down before I could even get there, and um said, I can’t believe you’re trying to bring - bring things like this up, and  she said how can I bring this to Ted Kaufman?  He’ll just think we’re all on our periods.  

KH:  wow.  and she could tell you were talking about something more than the harassment, or she was just saying that about the harassment?

TR:  um,  I don’t know, I don’t  - I can’t - I - I can’t project on to like what that conversation was ‘cause I was starting to tell her - she didn’t know, I didn’t tell her, I started to try to go there, and she shut it down 

KH:  Right, got it, yeah.

TR:   - like, I don’t want to hear this, like, that’s enough.  Like, you know, kinda basically letting me know like if I didn’t like it I could just go.  And so I  - it wasn’t too long after um, when I would see Biden after that, um, he would just not look at me. Not. He looked angry, like he would get this look on his face, and like whoosh - you know how someone walks by and instead of greeting you and smiling like they normally do, they won’t look at you - and he was pissed. 

KH: Right.

TR:  So then, the final interaction I had was 

She is now in his presence again.  We do not expect to hear the word "we" from her: 


- it was a mandatory meeting where I had to be there, and he came up behind me -  and put his hand on my shoulder, and then put his - um -  thumb or finger, I don’t even know what, but up and down the back of my neck - the hair, the back of my hair. And I remember I just froze, because I didn’t know what that meant, it was uncomfortable and I again told my mom about it, because it was just weird, and mom said, you know, that’s just power, he’s trying to dominate - you.  

There is no psychological unity here between them. She reliably reported the physical contact; here in her description, it is affirmed. 

KH: So this was after, ‘cause this was after the assault that happened?

TR:  yeah, yeah, that was the last kind of time I ever really interacted because they - they put me in a - um, windowless office, I didn’t have the one with the window anymore, I had - and I was cut off from staff, I was not supervising the interns anymore, I was not doing  - I was, literally my job was just to show up and look for another job.  I wasn’t allowed to go to legislative hearings,  nothing - so.  

But the chronology was that I was then looking for a job in - in June. I was volunteer for the RFK Memorial, the 25th Anniversary, I did the VIP tent, and I was taking to a person in Kennedy’s office who was trying to help me back towards trying to like - like get them to stop what they were doing, and anyway, technically, I think um my senate record goes to August, but I remember leaving before then.  Um, so - and I didn’t have a job, I couldn’t get a job.  Um, once like word got around unofficially about my trying to file a complaint, filling out a form and stuff, it’s like I - no-one    - no-one on The Hill.  Uh, like usually when I would send out resumes I would get responses right away.  

resentment noted.  See explanation on competing motives. 

KH:  I just want to make sure I’m clear on this.  You consider [inaudible] reporting the harassment? 

TR:  I did try to complain about the harassment internally, but I was going through protocol, you would see your supervised first, then Dennis [?], then - like I was following the protocol. I did it right

KH: Yes

TR: but - um, they didn’t do anything, right, and then it got worse, and then I went outside and tried, and there was like this office set up, and I can’t remember if it was in the Rayburn office, or if it was in the - it seemed to me like it was a congressional office building, not the Russell, Russell’s Senate - um, Longworth or Rayburn, and it was this little tiny office, and you go up, and there was literally a clipboard, and I filled out a form, and someone was a t the window, but it was weird, and it wasn’t very confidential, and it was just off. So I filled out the form, and I know it existed - they took it, and I don’t know what happened to it.  I’ve tried to track that form down but I was told it was probably returned to Biden’s office. So it’s archival material.


KH:  okay, so there’s sexual harassment that you witnessed and experienced, but you go through protocol, but nothing happens, then you have the incident with Biden in the alcove - you tell your mom and she encourages you to file a police report, you say no, but I will do something external about the harassment, not the assault?

TR:  Right, yeah - and I thought about trying to talk about it, I tried, but I couldn’t, I just couldn’t.  Even now, like, I - it’s so hard, and I don’t - I mean I’ve worked as an advocate for domestic violence cases, and I’ve helped kids, and I’ve helped whatever- but it’s just, um - there’s just - there was no framework back then.   And to be really clear, I - my mom educated me after it happened that it was sexual assault- I felt - I felt like it was my fault, like that I did bring it on.  And the reason, when after the whole drinks, serving the drinks thing happened, um, things got really tense for me, and it’s like my supervisor kept finding all of my work - like all of a sudden I was doing things wrong all of a sudden.  And then she took me aside, and sent in an assistant, and said we want you to wear different clothes- you need to button up more, you need to wear a longer skirt.  Like In other words she - and she said, don’t look so sexy, shoes like [inaudible] - and she goes, try not to be so noticed, you’re too noticeable.

The other person was more awkward about it, she was just like, um, it’s nor coming from me, but they’re telling you to wear a longer skirt, and button up more, you’re a little too - provocative - was the word she used.

KH:  Right.  

TR:  And I was like - oh this is, this is weird, so I  told my mom that, and she goes, that’s retaliation - they’re trying to retaliate, you need to document everything.  And my mom was very like, adamant. Um, and I wasn’t - and I was like, Mom, and she  - my mom even said, you march in there, and you tell them this is sexual harassment and you don’t take it.  You don’t march into Ted Kaufman’s office and - you don’t do that, and I’m not - I just wasn’t comfortable. I said I’ll never be able to get a job on The Hill again, and it didn’t matter, because I couldn’t anyway.  

So - so, those, those are my memories of the overarching retaliation piece,  but again, it started as a verbal complaint, and then escalated to written. They did threaten to write me up about what I was wearing, and I was just wearing like, you know, suits - like your average like, you know, skirt, blouse, sometimes a blazer, whatever but - I don’t know, they - you know, they were - nice, I guess.  I didn’t have that many outfits, like I wasn’t - you know, I had like um just a basic wardrobe that I would interchange - but you know, it’s - it’s - now I look it at, it’s laughable, they were just turning it around on me, because I was like just wearing navy blue and black, and pinstripes -you know -  back then pinstripes were okay, I don’t know why, but, um

KH:  Nothing wrong with pinstripes.

TR:  So, yeah.  To be really clear, I started out with just on my end, I like documented,  my mom was like forcing me to, like, and I was even keeping a journal at the time.  Um.

KH:  Which you don’t have anymore, right?

TR:  No.  I don’t, I wish I did.  I just never thought this would ever come up again.  There’s - there’s many things from my youth that I don’t have, but I wish I did, but -  

KH: Yeah.

TR:  - she was kind of telling me what I needed to do.  She predicted that they would retaliate and she was absolutely right.  I didn’t think they would. For some reason I was just in this like - I just thought it would go away, like after the drinks thing.  I thought, well, you know, when you give the message I’m not interested, or I’m not like one of those people that just wants to try to make contacts that way, it’ll just go away.  But it didn’t, it got worse, and they really took an attitude with me.  It was almost hostile, it was like angry, almost, from upper level staff, like I wasn’t cooperating the way they wanted me to. 

So to be really clear, it was written, I mean it was verbal - excuse me, and then, after the incident is when I went outside

KH: The incident, the assault incident?

TR:  Yes,


KH:  Okay, yeah. 

TR: Um, after the assault I went outside the, you know, sphere of the office for help. And um, that’s when I sought out that little room that I filled out the form,, it was just a form, and then didn’t really know what to do after that. I talked to my friend who worked in Kennedy’s office, then she tried to talk to somebody there, to see, you know.  She wasn’t sure what to do either, and again I was pretty like, I told her, but it has this - the assault had, back then - it was very difficult- it’s still difficult for me to discuss openly, but back then it was just - I - it was really hard, and so I would talk around it.  My mom kinda pulled it out of me. I didn’t give her a lot of details at first, she kinda - it took her like an hour., and she got it.  I became like physically ill. I was, I was like - I, I don’t know. I completely like curled up and um -  I called her crying, and she was really concerned.

KH:  So you called her.

TR: Called her, and cried, and told her part of it, like talked around it, and then she got me to say the words.  

KH: So what did you say at first?

TR:  First I said there was something happened at work, it was kinda bad. And she said, kinda bad, what does that mean?  And she kept like, you know, asking me questions, and then finally - I said, well, I had an - I had an encounter with Senator Biden, and it was - it was - it, it - I j.. I don’t know what to do.  

And she said, what do you mean, an encounter? What does that mean?  And, and I said, well - she said, and then she got impatient - Tara, just tell me what you’re talking about.  And um, anyway, I don’t remember how the whole conversation went from there but I basically then gave her the, you know, the way out, and she was, you know, furious, like, she wanted to call the police - she was like - you know, she was a mom, and she was just like this is - that’s assault.  And I was like no, it’s not, I - I did something he said, he thought, you know, that I liked him,  and I was like trying, I almost, like I was defending him - it was bizarre.  Because I was just, I think I was kinda in shock, too. And um, I think that I kept thinking if I just - I wanted it to just go away. I wanted to just be  - to be back to where I was first in that office and like, you know, nothing ever happened.  But it won’t be now - I wasn’t - I was in denial, I guess. 

Part Two 

KH:  Interesting.  So both at the time and then moving forward, you were okay with, and I think it’s understandable, but I just want you to like explain it to people who may not understand, but you were - it was much easier for you to talk about the harassment than the assault because you came forward about the harassment, and you filed an external report, um - and not about the assault, and then jumping forward decades, you, when, after Lucy Flores came forward, you shared about the harassment but not the assault.  What’s the difference?  I just want to make sure that people who don’t get it, get it. 

TR:  It - it - it’s a very good point.  I - last April, um, I saw the way the press was tearing Lucy Flores apart, and a friend of mine had even called me, who went through - who I had told about the assault when it happened, so she was like, trying to like, one night when I was like, sobbing, and like, like knowing - it wasn’t, it wasn’t just the trauma of what happened because of him, it was because I knew my career was over, like that was it.  Like, I didn’t -   I insulted him, and he’s one of the most powerful people in the world, and at the time the chairman of the judiciary - like, there’s, I - I just really felt scared and sad and whatever.  So, she, she kinda of, she called me and she said, hey, you know, on the news they’re saying no employees of Biden came forward, and you know, what do you think? 

Uh, and then, my daughter knew about it and my daughter’s grown now, she’s not, you know, um, a child, like when Obama was elected, you know, and I guess I should share this - I don’t mind sharing it, it’s - um, I’m a lifelong Democrat, and my mom was a Democrat, and I mean like it’s what I believe in, and I voted for Obama - Biden happened to be on the ticket.  Um there was no way I could come forward then because my daughter was in junior high, and junior high is junior high - you know, I didn’t want- I didn’t even know if people would care, and there was no framework for that anyway.  

KH:  Right.

TR:  Plus I really believed in Obama, I just was so happy about him and his platform - he was uh, uh, an activist in Chicago I had heard, an organiser in Chicago, and my mom had, you know, that background of being an activist and I - I trusted him, so I thought this will be a great president, and he was - so, um, moving forward to this April when Lucy Flores was being so torn apart in the press, and like Whoopi Goldberg was making that comment publicly about “someone puts their hand on your shoulder you just turn around and you tell them to take it off” - and I was like, oh, oh, that’s cringe - cringeworthy, like if you work for them you don’t.  And in a sense  - it’s like she had been supported by him politically, so it’s like he was - he was endorsing her, so.

KH:   Right

TR:  And she come, yeah, like she - there was a power thing

KH:  Lucy Flores, yeah 

TR:   Yeah, and what I noticed is he seems to do this a lot with women with power differentials, so now I’m educated about that - I wasn’t

KH: Yeah

TR:  when I.  And um, I - I just - I didn’t like that and so I thought, okay, and so

KH:  The insinuation was like, look, if this is the guy who does this so much, why didn’t people who work for him experience that? That’s what they were saying, right?

TR:  Yeah, and I’d had more than one person say, oh well, do you have more women?  And I’m like, I don’t know, like, we don’t like all talk in a group like, okay - but no, that -  I mean, I don’t - that’s so absurd, like it - now I guess because of the Weinstein case, or other cases, they’re thinking  there - we have - we move in throng, and well this is the thing, I, and I want to make this really clear - this has been excruciating for me because I - I liked Biden.  I mean not in - way


KH: Governmental way, yeah

TR:  He was a powerful figure for me - he was, you know, I was his subordinate, I was hoping to have a career in the Senate, I wanted to be a Senator, I didn’t want to sleep with one.  I wanted to be taken seriously, I wanted to have a full career and be mentored,  and the people who worked around him were brilliant, like there were some really brilliant legislative assistants, so, it was a collective thing, it wasn’t just him, right.


KH: Right.

TR:  Excruciating for me is that, you know, he’s not like some horrible monster, he’s done really good things, and so, as you get older, you realise many things can be true at once. Like

This is to highlight the sophistication lacking as a young person. The subject stands with her progressive ideology.  This may have been a source of anger for her during the Democratic debates. 

KH: Yeah.

TR:  - like people can do cool stuff and then do really yucky stuff. 


KH: Right.

TR:  Um, I - just - it’s been excruciating because I - I  don’t want to say - I don’t - it’s a hard subject, still.  And even though there’s the MeToo movement, it’s still - like what happened to me in April when I did come forward, um, was, uh - I was just totally decimated online, on social media, and my reputation was, was torn apart.  Um, it’s a daily dot article of lLiberal Conspiracy calls Accuser Russian Agent, or something like that.  But um - 


KH:  So who did you go forward to at this point?  When you saw Lucy Flores being torn apart.

TR:  When I saw Lucy Flores?  Well, we have a local paper, and um, the - someone who was in my writing group knew about it and said, hey would you talk to a reporter and I said I don’t know, let me think about it, and I said, okay, you know, they can call me.  And they did, like a week later they called me, and so I accepted the call and then, um - and I even emailed Lucy Flores, I emailed her and said, hey I’m sorry, this happened to me, and I sent her - and she goes, really, would you talk to someone? and she gave me someone in the Washington Post, and then they never really followed up.  


KH:  And what was it like when you told her your story at this point, just the harassment story?

TR:  Well, I was gonna tell the whole thing, I was gonna try, and then I - I mean I was just gonna tell the whole facts, like the whole thing, the whole history with Biden, but the way I was being questioned - it, it, it made me so uncomfortable that I didn’t trust it, and no - no offence to the reporters out there, it’s just um, maybe that’s something that could be learned, how to talk to somebody who’s a  - I just really got shut down.  And um, and the narrative really wanted to be that it wasn’t like a sexual thing - like don’t do sexual - like don’t say it’s - or - and so I was like okay, I guess I can’t really say the whole story - the whole story, I can’t tell it.

It was hard - um, but then, I - I was afraid to - and then um, rightly so, because just the portion that came out - oh, my goodness - 


KH: Yeah, you got attacked on that.

TR:  So.  Yeah, I mean just the portion which came out was like, um - I - I mean they - the - literally the paper hadn’t even had the article yet, it was just on the - I guess on the AP wire, I hadn’t even seen the article yet, and I was already getting smeared online, so I didn’t even know where it was - I assume the AP wire, I don’t know.  

Um, yeah, it made me very angry, so I went through that and then I was kind of relieved that, you know, had I have come out with the whole thing I didn’t even know, because I received death threats, I received like calls in the middle of the night.  There was a thread about me called “Alexander Traitor Reade”


KH: Oh my God..

TR:  And then, um, I was trying to do freelance work, and uh - it’s a hard thing to - to - when people Google your name.  Like they would find all kinds of weird things said about me, so as soon as you put in my name, so, and then the whole Biden thing - and people that are very for Biden, it’s, it’s just - it, it gives me, it’s just so political and so loud right now that, yeah - it was - and we’re kind of in a culture of gladiators, thumbs up, thumbs down. 

KH:  Yeah, I think that people maybe don’t get that there’s a big difference between like a physical violation and like putting - having someone put their hand inside you - and being asked to serve drinks or being looked up and down, or um - you know, running his hand through your hair, not that any of those things are good things, but there is a big difference.

TR:  It, it - it was like, almost like creating the more the boundary was crossed, the more that was there, but I think he was looking for me to be a willing participant, um, as well, and, and I think he was used to that happening, maybe? - and I just wasn’t.  And I think pushing back on being objectified, plus I went out with - I had a boyfriend, I went out with boys my own age in their twenties. I didn’t go out with older married men - not that he was trying to go out with me - there was no computations about this, so I don’t want to like mis-misrepresent it.  

KH:  I’m just saying that people might say like, well, why didn’t you just tell the whole thing when you did?  That it was much more of a violation?  

TR:  I can  - I can tell you that I still have nightmares sometimes, even now, like years later.  When you suffer something like that, it’s - it’s like, I mean when you look at it clinically it seems like well what’s - it’s a terrible thing but why not, you know, just get over it like, or whatever, but the whole thing was I never got any justice, I never would, I lost my career.  I didn’t do anything wrong.  I - I didn’t choose that situation- I didn’t want him to look at me in an objectifying way.  By doing that he minimised me, he minimised my worth as - at the workplace - he minimised me as a woman, and I thought he was a champion of women,  so it was for me not just the violation but the violation of my principles, of like my belief system.  I believed in him, and - and he was my boss,  Like he had power over me - so to say no was such a hard thing, and I knew I insulted him and I didn’t want him to be insulted, but it was so awkward.  

I - if I had known how the atmosphere was, if somebody had tipped me off, and no-one did, I would have never applied, I would have gone to a different office, I would have worked for one of the other congressmen or senators, or congresswomen, um, like Maxine Waters, who was in California at the time.  Because, you know, I - I came from Panetta’s office, so I was used to the professional office, and there was none of that uh nonsense there.  Like there was not that.  There was not an atmosphere.  Um, I found out later that there was kind of a known vibe there, um, like he was known to - like women, in a certain way.

KH: Biden was?

TR:  Yeah.  Biden, not Panetta, yeah.

KH:  And so, then, okay, what?  What happens to make you tell the full story now?

TR:  I think it’s - well, my daughter’s grown- she’s grown now, and so back last April when I told that portion and then got such backlash I didn’t feel comfortable telling the whole thing.  And then I thought, well okay, just - it’s   - I’ll help people in other ways, like, I’ll help victims of sexual assault, like I mean I’ll just help in other ways and that’s what I’ve done before, instead of, you know tryinga - 

KH:  Was it that you felt guilty not coming forward or was it that, well this is the justice I will get, which is by helping others?  

TR:  I think kind of both, um, it’s not like I felt guilty.  I felt, when it happened at the time, I don’t want to be confusing- when it happened at the time I really internalised it and felt like it was my fault.  

KH:  Right.

TR:  I really felt like I - 

KH:  You felt guilty then.

TR: Right.

KH:  But this is a different guilt that I’m asking you about, which is like a “Oh, I have not spoken out about this person” guilt.  

TR:  Okay.  I wasn’t brave enough, I just couldn’t do it.  Yeah, I felt more not so much guilty as disappointed in myself that I just didn’t have the guts to say the words, but it’s almost like I would try to say the words and I couldn’t get there.  I don’t know how to really describe it except it was deeply personal and it makes you very vulnerable, and um, I still, you know, I’m sharing the facts, but like there’s little things that, you know, I keep to myself because it - it’s no-one’s business, its not gonna be like, you know, a police investigation, it’s - I’m never gonna sue - whatever.  You know, its past the statute of limitations.

KH:  Mmm.

TR:  I’m, doing this for the next generation, I’m doing this for my daughter, because the generation that we’re in, that I’m in - you’re younger than me, um, we need to stop this - we need to stop thinking that because someone’s powerful, we can’t speak out, and we can’t be safe in our work space, you know.  We need - we need that place, that framework, to be able to speak out, and that’s why I feel so adamant about it, because I thought he was gonna drop out, and he didn’t.  And the idea, can you imagine, for me, to see the person who did that, and then not only did that, but he never apologised, he never acknowledged it, he never said, “I’m sorry”.  And even, like, okay, if he’s in denial about what he did, right - doesn’t remember it or doesn’t want to, whatever it is, the sexual harassment was witnessed by so many people it was like a thing, like why wouldn’t his campaign have called me and said, “We’re sorry.”?  

And they’re supposed to be championing women’s rights, why wouldn’t they reach out to me - why wasn’t there some healing or conciliatory action?  And there never was then in ninety-two, ninety-three, and there isn’t now.  Yeah, it’s, it’s, it’s ugly, it’s, it’s um

KH: And then you went, so you came, you went forward, you came forward to whom? It’s January, right, January 2020?  

TR:  Correct, yes.

KH:  At this point Biden wasn’t even doing that well, so

TR:  No, he wasn’t, but I really wanted to address what he did, and I actually did contact, um, I contacted Time’s Up, uh, which is an organisation for women that helps them get resources if you apply, um, for legal resources, and - to help you.  I gotta hold of Time’s Up, they were very - they took my case, and um after they took my case they contacted lawyers, they - to see if there was conflicts, um, some replied, and then - then when they heard about the full thing, the full account, they were worried about it, but one of them was going to take it, but then two of his partners in another state were working in the Virginia Biden campaign.  

He said okay if, if Biden’s probably going to drop out after Virginia, I can represent you then. Well, then he never did because of Biden didn’t drop out. 

Then Time’s Up got a hold of me and said that their lawyers told them if I go on c3 will be at risk uh, because it’s a presidential campaign, and it’s too political, and Biden was the candidate.
So they said we can help you like, but not with resources.  So In other words I needed a lawyer that would be for free, that would just volunteer their services.  They couldn’t give me their platform, they couldn’t do anything as long as Biden was a candidate.

KH:  So they were just trying to help you find a lawyer whom you’d have to pay?  

TR:  Yeah, and I didn’t have the resources to do that, so.  

KH:  Okay.

TR:  Um, then, you know, they stayed in touch and said they, you know, I pushed back a little and said I can’t help who the person is that did this.  Where do I go?  And you know, they felt bad, I could tell, and so I don’t know if their organisation was pressured by the people that fund it, or sit on the board, or - they said it was their attorneys who said their 501c3 would be at risk.  And I don’t know why that would happen, but they said it was too political, but I just - I let, I let it go because um - I mean I’m not trying to trash Time’s Up, they’re a good organisation doing great work, and they even said they believed the veracity of my story, they want to help me, and they were trying to, quietly, but it just couldn’t.

So yeah, so it’s been - um, I’ve been standing alone pretty much, um, and of course one of the questions that was asked me is, well, are there more women? And I’m like, how would I know this?  Like, I, you know what I mean, like - ?

KH:  Right.  Well, I mean it’s possible there would be and that you would know them, but the insinuation, implication is that like if you don’t, then it’s not a real story.  

TR:  I know, and like -

KH:  And of course it’s possible that there are other people like you and they precisely didn’t.  You only shared it with who,  your mom and your friend, right?

TR:  And my brother, yeah, and my family, yeah.  My immediate family, but yeah - it’s not that incident,  I never shared. I was horrified, yeah.  I was trying to share with my supervisor, in that way of, but I couldn’t, so.  

I found my outlet through like the arts, or through like horseback riding and stuff like that, and I would just try to be in denial, and like - I just want, I really kind of am a peace loving person, I just love - I just, you know, I’m a vegan hippy kind of person.

KH:  Yeah.

TR:  I just want everybody to be happy.  I want, um, people to be in a better space.  I don’t want to [inaudible].  I kinda felt too, that talking about it was, um, harmful.  I’m a very - like I remember that Lucy Flores, one thing that struck me, watching her, and listening to her, and I felt so - um, bad for her, because I related to what she was saying. Uh, she said, you know, I’m a Democratic foot soldier, I - because they were asking why she didn’t come sooner.  well, like, what I would say to people is why don’t we flip the question?  It’s not about us, what we do, what we wear, what we think, what our politics are, what our dreams are - the question is, why is he doing that?  Why?

KH:  Yeah.  

TR:  The question is about the person perpetrating whatever that is. Like, what is the pattern, and why are they doing that?  Modify the behaviour.  And I know they’re trying to get Biden to modify his behaviour, over and over.  I mean, it’s obvious, like, who he is.  I - and I’m hoping by coming forward with this, and I know it’s hard to listen to, and it’s hard to live in it, right - but my justice now, the only justice I can have is to be moving freely in the world and to heal - and not be silenced.  

One of the things I talk about being silenced is when  people say, oh, why didn’t you come forward?  Well, I tried. I went to media outlets, like the summer, and before January - nobody ever epreturned my call, not one.  I went, my - I went to Warren, I wrote a letter to her, and I was supportive of her becoming president, I would have loved to have seen a woman president - like I wrote her what hap - not - I eluded to it, I didn’t write details, but I wrote there’s something wrong here, and like wrote about it - no response, except a form letter to contact my local representative.  I wrote Kamala Harris, I wrote AOC, none of  - not one person.  I wrote celebrities, I wrote MeToo, I wrote um, Ronan Farrow, I wrote The New Yorker, New York Times, Washington Post.  And so I want people to know this - it’s not that easy to get your story heard.  Not one person answered me, not one.  Elizabeth Warren was the only one, and that was a form letter. 

And I felt so alone and isolated, and the only thing that would happen is once in a while, when I would try to put it out like on Twitter, like saying, hey, this is wrong, I’m being called a Russian agent, this happened -  Biden’s supporters would just write, would say again, you’re a Russian agent, you’re a bot, would just write - would say again, you’re a Russian agent, you’re a bot.  Yeah, and I - it’s -  being silenced about sexual assault and sexual harassment, it’s like - it’s like a slow death,  you know?  

KH:  Uhum.

TR:  And, I’m not gonna let it, I am not gonna let this take me down.  I think by shining light on it.  I - some people will say it didn’t happen, and that they don’t believe me, and I don’t care.  The people that need to hear it will, and the survivors that are being silenced that are out there will hear it, and they’ll know, okay, we can do this.  We can do this.  And so I’m telling you, do this - shine light on it.  The last thing people want, when they abuse, is to be examined - they don’t want that.  

KH: Yeah, it’s interesting, so yeah, it’s like a different level - so there’s the silencing of someone just like your generic run of the mill, sadly totally predictable silencing of victims, survivors, and then there’s this other thing where it’s like now it’s a political thing, so you’re now not just ignored, but you’re like smeared as, and I guess this is what always happens, it’s just a question of how people are smeared.  

Tr:  Yeah, almost like McCarthyism, or whatever, and that’s before a lot of people’s time, and before both of our times, but people lost their careers, and in fact I did, too, like, and retaliation is common from abusers um, but he used his staff, he used his power, he weaponised it, and that’s what’s really ugly, as far as like, you know, like not only did he weaponise it when - I was his employee and they retaliated, that’s against the law - like besides like,  put aside everything else, that was against the law, the retaliation and what they did to me.

I don’t even know where to go from here, except that for my own sanity and peace, it’s now for the generation behind me, other people, I’m gonna take the heat., and believe me, no-one on the right likes me.  You know, I - I kind of expected trolls or whatever, that’s not, like, I mean that hurt and then it got a little scary, right, like I got scared.  They call it, and I found out, because I didn’t know this, but it’s called doxxing.


KH: Doxxing, yeah.  

TR:  Well, they found out where I lived.  

KH:  How? And what did they do?

TR:  Oh, because someone had said they were coming to my house, and like, they were threatening me on the phone.  

KH:  Did they mention where you live, like were they right?  

TR:  yeah. He said, I know you live in [redacted], you know we’re coming - you’re a traitor, you’re a traitor.  You better get Putin to protect you. I mean like that.  And they said crude stuff to me, and I can’t remember some of it, and then I saved one email that was like a threat. You know, I,  at first I was just like whatever,  I just like wanted it away from me,  now I’ll document it better, but I just, like I don’t - I’m not - I have a law degree but I don’t practice law, and I’m into - I help non-profits, that’s what I do, I - um, and I’m an expert witness for Monterey County, for the domestic violence cases, um, and so I do that for a stipend, it’s almost like a volunteer thing.

KH: Uhum.

TR:  And that’s how I kinda channel this rage or energy is I - I - I give other - just help other people, huh?  It’s just - and I think that’s healthy like we all need to hear that right now because we’re all kinda feeling upset about what’s happening, as we really should, um, it’s a very hard time for a lot of people. Um, so, what I would say is just, you know, sometimes just immersing yourself in something different that has nothing to do with your own life, it helps.  

KH: Right.

TR:  It’s healing. 

KH:  Yeah, it’s true, it’s like a anti-depressant to help others. 

TR:  And restorative justice is just not always possible and what I’m hoping is that we can get to a place where sexual harassment and sexual assault is not such a stigma, where it’s difficult to talk about, and that there can be restorative justice.  It doesn’t take ninety women in forty years to get someone, right.  


KH:  Right.

TR:  Or if you’re, if you’re in a workplace where it’s happening you can speak up, and you’re not going to lose your whole career, where a man doesn’t have the power to do that, or a woman - there are male victims.  

KH:  And women victims or women, too.  Okay, and anything else that you wanna make sure you say.  Do you wanna share that thing which you said, like, I don’t want to say what he said, that thing he said to you? 

TR:  Umm.  -  Yeah.  I can - guess I could.  

KH:  I mean, you don’t have to.  

TR:  It’s okay, it’s just, um, it’s almost like giving a weapon to them.

KH: How so?

TR:  Well, it’s like, I don’t want them to know how much it hurt.  I don’t

KH: Mmm.

TR:  I don’t want him to know - when they, I don’t know, yeah.

KH: Yeah.  Like that you remembered it?  

TR:  Yeah - but, uh, yeah, I can say it.  Um.  So how do - do you want me to go back and - how do you want me to - ?

KH:  Well, yeah, you just mentioned that there was something he said to you that you didn’t want to say.

TR:  Yeah, there was something he said that I didn’t want to say, and I didn’t want to say it because it’s the thing that stays in my head.  

KH:  Mmm.

TR:  Over and over, like, like - and um, it’s a thing that - kinda stayed with me over the years, but he said, um - when he had me against the wall, after he’d done, after I’d pulled away, and he’d said, “Hey”, you know, “come on, heard you liked me” - and I, um, knew he was angry, right after he took his finger - he just like pointed at me, and he said, “You’re nothing to me.” and then he just looked at me and he goes, “You’re nothing, nothing.”

And then I must have reacted.  I think he only said it twice - but - I - but I just heard the word “nothing”, and  - and I must have reacted because that’s when he took me by the shoulders, and he said, you know, “You’re okay, you’re fine - you’re okay.”  

But then afterwards like, it kept replaying in my head, and like last April, when all that stuff came out -  I got really, really sad about it, and -  the thing that I remember most, almost more than the assault itself was just being told that I was nothing.  And he was right.  That’s how people treated me, that’s how the office treated me, and I have no platform, I am no-one, and to him, I’m nothing.  

So, yeah.  Oh, so, people want to know why women don’t come forward.  That’s a good example why and I’m just trying to get past it, trying to feel -  like I have spent most of my life hiding from powerful men, be it my abusive ex-husband later, or Joe Biden, and I am now at the point where I just, I’m done, like I don’t want this to be someone else’s life.  I don’t want my life to be someone else’s life, and that’s a really hard thing to say.  

KH:  Mm.

TR:  But I don’t want someone to live what I went through because it was hard, and it was empty, um - with no justice, and I don’t want some bad to be repeated, I want for me restorative justice would be for someone to be able to come forward- um, and have healing.

And I know there’s a lot of pain around sexual assault, it’s confusing, but my mom, really, was a wonderful person and that she -  helped me through a lot, um, about explaining about it not being related to sex as much as power.  And you know, um, that was really important, because I was able to not internalise that part of it later, as I matured, and um, that’s important for people to hear, you know, that are going through this, or have gone through this.  And the other part, the self-esteem part, that’s just, you know, you have to rebuild that, right, and it takes time, and sometimes it’s not a linear process.  It’s -  you feel great, and then you don’t, you feel great, then you don’t, but um - you can’t - other people’s vision of you can’t be internalised like that.  So I learned a lot about not internalising other people’s stuff, and um, it seems like people like Biden, powerful people like that, or just people that engage in that behaviour seem very good at deflecting and not internalising anything, and if you’re kind of the opposite, or empathic - empathic and you’re like wanting to help people - if you’re an empathetic person it has a deep effect, like what people say.  It can really impact you, you know, words are like arrows, they find their mark, and um, you know, in my case - the words he said to me found their mark - he made me feel like it was my fault, he made me feel like I was insignificant, and that I had no power - and I look back at that, and I see him talking about running on a platform of character, and I just want to scream - like, I want to scream.  How dare you?  How dare you talk about all the things you’ve done for women, when I know who you are, I see you, I experienced you, and that’s not who you are.

And um, yeah, it is just time for all of this to stop. So, you know,  people, I’m not trying to say all this - and people are going to say, well, why come out now?  Well,  I’ve been trying,  and no-one’s been giving me a platform, so thank you - for allowing me to speak on your show, and um, I appreciate that, because I have tried - so, so, if for saying that, I’ve been trying for a while.

KH:  Well, thank you so much, Tara


TR:  Thank you.

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject reliably reported the sexual assault.  It is likely that on the details of what happened, she would pass a polygraph.  

The subject gives indication of possible infatuation with Biden and disappointment and/or humiliation at being objectified by him. She may have expected a relationship with him. She is unified with him, as evident in the use of the word "we", including a parathentical view (recounting), yet specifically about being alone.  This suggests the subject may have been flattered by the attention.  She may have even been excited about it, with expectation of being heard and taken seriously politically by Biden, and not expecting the physical contact to take place. 

The age, status and  sophistication disparity likely played a role in what happened. 

The subject may have sought his attention, including by her appearance and may have had feelings of jealousy towards other women Biden may have noticed. 

Motive for reporting:

The subject likely has mixed or competing motives for making this information public now,  including humiliation, a desire to be known or recognized, as well as deep disappointment due to perceived  provocation in Biden's recent (campaign) claims of progressivism, particularly of women.  His claims may have infuriated her. 

The subject is concealing information regarding  her emotions, particularly when Biden "left" her after the event. 

The bitterness remains, which likely includes emotion about how she handled it, and how her superiors handled it. 

Reporting:

Given the age, status and sophistication disparity, the subject is very sensitive about her initial filed report, as well as dealing with what she likely considers tangential issues by media that may seek to provide cover for Biden. 

The event, itself,  is reported without qualification, suppression or posturing.  Before the event is guided (contaminated) by the interviewer, as is most of the interview.  

She was, and is, very concerned about her reputation.  




57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

GREAT JOB! Excellent analysis, explanations and final analysis. Peter, hire her!

GetThem

Unknown said...

If you have time can you analyze the sexual misconduct claims against Trump? Thank you.

Autumn said...

OT:

Anonymous, I just watched it. Youtube will probably remove the video. Pharmaceutical industry is often a very dirty business. It's all about profit. Human lives don't matter. Very immoral already in itself. But to cover it with a layer of "philanthropy" makes it that much worse (i.m.o.). Very courageous woman, I got tears in my eyes when she choked up near the end. Let's hope doctors (and citizens) unite and push back.

Autumn said...

Thanks Peter and Hey Jude. That was a very interesting read. I too think that Tara Reade was truthful about the sexual assault. However, I got the impression that maybe she didn’t reject him immediately? She doesn’t say she tried to push him away. She says “he um - got finished doing what he was doing, and I pulled back” So did she let him finish what he was doing? She also doesn’t explicitly say she said “no”. She says that saying “no” was hard and she didn’t want to insult him:

“Like he had power over me - so to say no was such a hard thing, and I knew I insulted him and I didn’t want him to be insulted, but it was so awkward.”

It sounds apologetic somehow. Does it mean she didn’t say “no” immediately (maybe only after he asked her to go somewhere else)? If so, it wouldn’t make Biden’s alleged assault any less reprehensible i.m.o. but it may have made the assault more confusing and difficult to process for her. I wonder if she blames/blamed herself for not being firm enough (not standing up for herself)?

Another thing that stood out is how hurt she was because he said “You’re nothing to me” and “you’re nothing, nothing”. Maybe those annihilating words tapped into previous experiences and thus made them all the more humiliating and infuriating (after all she “spent most of her life hiding from powerful men”)? She says those words kept replaying in her head. Maybe seeing Biden in debates (and/or recent experiences with her abusive ex-husband?) triggered the old hurt/anger? In any case I think another possible motive is revenge. Payback in kind. She wanted to destroy Biden’s career just like he destroyed hers all those years ago. To humiliate and annihilate him like he humiliated and annihilated her.

Tom said...

Peter (and Hey Jude) —

Thank you!

I’ve been waiting for you to delve more deeply into this.

Very interesting to me from an SA standpoint.

I will read right after I do the dishes!

Tom

Hey Jude said...

Get Them - thanks, but it’s Peter’s analysis. :)

Peter, thank you, I am glad you explained the “we” after the assault - I see now.

There’s something a bit tragic about her thinking that she was the one who insulted him.

By not serving drinks, maybe, but not in not wanting to go somewhere else with him. What does she mean?

I thought it was somewhat funny when the interviewer asked, after TR had she said she wanted to be a good employee, if she had served drinks at the event, and she said no.

I think her mother maybe has a lot to answer for.




Anonymous said...

Oops, darn good analysis Peter. Thank you for setting me straight HeyJude. :)

GetThem

Matilda said...

Unknown 10:48:

Here is one: http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/10/summer-zervos-trump-accuser.html

frank said...

Not important. All of those allegations to Trump happened before 2016 and we elected him.

Anonymous said...

Great analysis, as usual. Semi-off topic:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

Textbook traits: control, power, disrespect, you have to play by his rules, while he decides which ones to break, no empathy, SILENT TREATMENT when you don't do what he wants, crosses boundaries, entitlement, bullying, treating people like OBJECTS, MISTREATING HIS STAFF ("hired help" are beneath him and probably why he said little to Tara), revenge, relentlessly ruins your reputation, intimidates, abuses, triangulation (but using millions of people), has lots of devoted flying monkeys who grow to think just like him and use the same manipulation tactics, guilt-tripping, gaslighting. And that's just off the top of my head.

He walks around with that arrogant cat-who-ate-the-canary expression, like he KNOWS were too stupid to know what he's about, in a permanent state of delusion, thinking he's God's gift to everyone - especially women and little girls.

And don't get me started on another issue. But I know one time he said he was affectionate with little girls so they will trust him (or
either feel comfortable with him). Yeah Joe. We know. It's called grooming.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Hey Jude sent me the transcripts which took hours of work.

She also sent me her findings.

She did an excellent job, particularly in identifying commitment and some dominant personality traits.

Gratitude & Kudos, Hey Jude!


Peter

Katinjax said...

thank you Frank for your reply to unknown May 6, 2020 at 10:48 AM!

Statement Analysis Blog said...

see YouTube video on President Trump's language.

Also note that the "surprise" at his language expressed by James Comey is deceptive. Trump's negotiation language, self promotion and impulsivity has not only been long known, but analysts working for Comey would have strong reports on it.

Peter

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

Massive Search Launched to Locate Missing 2-Year-Old Oklahoma Boy.

Mums brief statement.

Carlie Rain Young
14 hours ago
I just want (my baby) home safe. Hes (my) snuggle bug, (my) adventure buddy, (my) everything.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.ntd.com/massive-search-launched-to-locate-missing-2-year-old-oklahoma-boy_463291.html/amp

Hey Jude said...

Thank you, Peter. :)

Mike Dammann said...

She said "kind of" 20 times.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Hey Jude said...
Thank you, Peter. :)
May 7, 2020 at 12:38 PM


You worked the course slowly and carefully. Your own analysis showed the gain of knowledge. '

Peter

John Mc Gowan said...

My OT

FOUND SAFE

Nadine Lumley said...

TR: and he just had me up against the wall, and the wall was cold

it was cold all of a sudden

Sensory details give her accounting more weight as truthful.



TR: And so I’m telling you, do this - shine light on it.

I think by shining light on it.


Is is possible by Tara talking about light that she may have been sexually abused by someone else previous to Biden finger raping her?

Joe probably targetted Tara if she gave off wounded ego / low self esteem vibes. Hunter picks weak prey.


....

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Authorities in Tennessee have identified a “person of interest” in the death of Evelyn Boswell, the infant girl whose remains were discovered in a home earlier this year, according to reports.

Captain Joey Strickler of the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office confirmed the investigation of the individual to WJHL.

He did not disclose the name or identity of the person.

Authorities found the remains of 15-month-old Evelyn Boswell on March 6 in a Sullivan County home belonging to a relative of the child’s mother, Megan Boswell. The child had not been seen since late December 2019.

Megan Boswell, 18, was arrested Feb. 25 on charges of filing a false police report. She is scheduled to appear in Sullivan County criminal court on Friday.

Strickler told WJHL that no one had called the sheriff’s office to look in the area where the infant’s remains were later found.

Investigators have not received the full autopsy reports, nor have they interviewed the girl’s mother since her remains were found, according to the station.

Stickler said the coronavirus pandemic has somewhat slowed the investigation but has allowed the sheriff’s office to be more meticulous in its handling of the case.

The investigation is being handled by several detectives from the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office with help from two detectives of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Strickler said.

Hey Jude said...

Peter - I have learned a lot and I enjoyed the course immensely - thank you.

Anonymous said...

I agree, she was very naive, trusting, and eager to please to get ahead and powerful people use this against their victims.

I'm very sympathetic, however, I wonder if her naivete was generally her nature. Or was it due to blind faith in her party and black-and-white thinking that prevented her from considering that a liberal politician could be a lying, unethical hypocrite with a ulterior motive - the kind of mentality that has been society's downfall for many years in both parties.

She repeatedly spoke of her surprise and confusion that biden could be pro-women and still sexually abuse them.

She couldn't even fathom why everyone turned against her and covered for biden. She clearly never expected things to escalate, so it didn't even occur to her to quit at any time.

And she actually believed her complaint would be in the archives! Yes, because documentation NEVER disappears. That's Cover-Your-Butt 101 - destroy all evidence.

That's an unbelievable amount of denial, resistance, and hesitancy.

I wonder how she would've reacted if it had been a random Republican.

I understand that handling her situation was trickier than most people who work outside the political and entertainment arenas, but she saw very early-on how things were being handled, but Im sure there were positions elsewhere.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - the Dr Judy Mikovits video you posted has already been removed by YouTube:

“This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines.
Learn more”

YouTube is not too keen on anything which doesn’t support the official information - it’s so infantalising of them not to allow people to watch the videos and form an opinion.

I saw one of Dr Mikovitis’ videos, and later heard it debunked by another Dr, who is also a bit off the wall - an analysis would have been so interesting.

Autumn said...

The dr. Judy Mikovits video is still on Dailymotion:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7tq82e

Autumn said...

OT: virus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrBuv6kq6Rc

This is an interview with professor dr. Wolfgang Wodarg about the role of China, WHO, Gates, pharmaceutical companies and European governments in the corona crisis. Especially the last 20 minutes (as from 1:02:40) are very interesting.

Wodarg is an internist and pulmonologist, a former member of the German parliament and chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, etc. In 2009, he initiated the Committee of Inquiry into WHO's role in H1N1 (swine flu).

tigerlille said...

I think that Reade must have been emotionally regressed throughout the interview. She gives the impression of being a young, innocent girl, not an adult woman with a law degree and many years of work experience. I actually found her exasperating, She was practically incoherent, and so afraid of criticism she might face from. And so naive, it was almost deliberate foolishness. For instance, thinking that the Biden campaign might try to make nice with her after she publicly alleged that Biden sexually harassed and assaulted her. She is obviously deeply conflicted, and seems to have some fantasy about making things up with Biden. He is obviously an opportunistic and ruthless man, yet she still seems to be seeking his approval. I truly feel sorry for her; she should never have spoken out in public about being victimized by Biden. She is an emotional mess and she’s being eaten alive by a ruthless press and by people who specialize in making snarky comments on social media. She has experienced very little healing from the original event, and the current situation is just compounding the injury. Anyway, that is my impression after reading as much of this interview/discussion or whatever the hell it was as I could tolerate. And don’t worry, I don’t imagine that I am using any of the analytical techniques intrinsic to Statement Analysis! I just felt like offering my strictly intuitive POV, I was extremely interested in Peter’s outstanding analysis of the Madeleine McCann case, and disappointed in the brevity of this analysis. I realize that Peter has limited time, and am just glad that he posted on the subject at all.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - it is Peter’s analysis.

Hey Jude said...

Here are the references which Tara Reade made to her mother throughout the interview:

I called my mom, and she was very adamant that I document it and file a report, and she said, you know, and her exact words were - I remember because we got into like a little bit of an argument about it, she said, um, “You just march in there and you tell them this is sexual harassment, and you know, and you file a complaint.” And I tried to explain to my mother that wasn’t easy, you couldn’t just march into Ted Kaufman’s office, that’s Chief of Staff, and that there was a protocol, and there was a way to do that - and my mother was very, um, she just said, you know, you tend to be a little passive sometimes, you know, sometimes you stick up for yourself, but sometimes, you know, you let people take advantage of you, you need to stand up, and you need to address this.
__

And my mother, I called my mom one day in tears, you know, and she was like, you know, this is retaliation, they know that you want to file something, you know, you’ve already - you’re going through the motions - ‘cause I - I had gone as far as to talk to Dennis [?] who was the next person up after [redacted at source] um, and Dennis [?] was then below Ted Kaufman, and it was just like this protocol you followed, and uh, I eventually did talk to Ted Kaufman, um, and Dennis [?] and [redacted] then [redacted] wasn’t even talking to me anymore, they - they - it was Dennis [?] who dealt with me.
_

[following the assault]

Right, so then I went home and um, I called my mom, because, um, I didn’t know who else to call, and she was wanting me to go make a police report like right then, my mom was very adamant that I do that, and um, very strong about me doing that, and I said, no, and we had like an argument about it, um, and I said, mom, you can’t do that. and she had known about the other stuff, and had encouraged me to document it, which I did, and go to the protocol about the - sexual harassment, and after this incident I did follow her instructions and do that part, but I didn’t talk about what happened,
_

[when she was asked to dress more coservatively]

TR: And I was like - oh this is, this is weird, so I told my mom that, and she goes, that’s retaliation - they’re trying to retaliate, you need to document everything. And my mom was very like, adamant. Um, and I wasn’t - and I was like, Mom, and she - my mom even said, you march in there, and you tell them this is sexual harassment and you don’t take it. You don’t march into Ted Kaufman’s office and - you don’t do that, and I’m not - I just wasn’t comfortable. I said I’ll never be able to get a job on The Hill again, and it didn’t matter, because I couldn’t anyway.
_

KH: Nothing wrong with pinstripes.

TR: So, yeah. To be really clear, I started out with just on my end, I like documented, my mom was like forcing me to, like, and I was even keeping a journal at the time. Um.

TR: - she was kind of telling me what I needed to do. She predicted that they would retaliate and she was absolutely right. I didn’t think they would.
_

Hey Jude said...

My mom kinda pulled it out of me. I didn’t give her a lot of details at first, she kinda - it took her like an hour., and she got it. I became like physically ill. I was, I was like - I, I don’t know. I completely like curled up and um - I called her crying, and she was really concerned.

KH: So you called her.

TR: Called her, and cried, and told her part of it, like talked around it, and then she got me to say the words.

KH: So what did you say at first?

TR: First I said there was something happened at work, it was kinda bad. And she said, kinda bad, what does that mean? And she kept like, you know, asking me questions, and then finally - I said, well, I had an - I had an encounter with Senator Biden, and it was - it was - it, it - I j.. I don’t know what to do.

And she said, what do you mean, an encounter? What does that mean? And, and I said, well - she said, and then she got impatient - Tara, just tell me what you’re talking about. And um, anyway, I don’t remember how the whole conversation went from there but I basically then gave her the, you know, the way out, and she was, you know, furious, like, she wanted to call the police - she was like - you know, she was a mom, and she was just like this is - that’s assault. And I was like no, it’s not, I - I did something he said, he thought, you know, that I liked him, and I was like trying, I almost, like I was defending him - it was bizarre.
_

TR: Plus I really believed in Obama, I just was so happy about him and his platform - he was uh, uh, an activist in Chicago I had heard, an organiser in Chicago, and my mom had, you know, that background of being an activist and I - I trusted him, so I thought this will be a great president, and he was
_

And I know there’s a lot of pain around sexual assault, it’s confusing, but my mom, really, was a wonderful person and that she - helped me through a lot, um, about explaining about it not being related to sex as much as power. And you know, um, that was really important, because I was able to not internalise that part of it later, as I matured, and um, that’s important for people to hear, you know, that are going through this, or have gone through this.

Hey Jude said...

I haven’t counted, but maybe there are more references to her mother than to Joe Biden. TR describes her mother as:

adamant;
wanting me to go;
adamant;
very strong about me doing that;
encouraged me to document it;
was very like adamant;
my mom was like forcing me;
kind of like telling me what to do;
my mom kinda pulled it out of me;
she was really concerned;
she got me to say the words;
she kept like, you know, asking me questions;
she got impatient;
furious, she wanted to call the police;
that background of being an activist;
my mom, really, was a wonderful person;
helped me through a lot - explaining about it

Anonymous said...

why doesn't she go from "we were alone" to "I was alone with him".

Hey Jude said...

Because she means they had been alone - like “we were finally alone, and that’s what happened”.

———

Something I noticed is that in one interview she said she wasn’t wearing tights, and in this one she said she wasn’t wearing stockings because it was kinda hot that day - I couldn’t be sure which was the earliest. Why does she mention it both times? Is she pre-emping the unasked question? No-one would have asked her. But as she drew attention to it I can say that stockings wouldn’t have been a deterrent, but tights might. Tights are easier to wear than stockings - women are more likely to wear tights to work for ease of dressing - especially in the early nineties, when it might have been considered half-dressed and “come-hither” if they didn’t. She changes tights to stockings, or possibly stockings to tights, so it seems reasonable to wonder about that change of language, and why she felt the need to mention it at all.

Anonymous said...

Hey Hey Jude

I mean we don't expect any unity after "the event"; why should being alone with somebody make an exception. In your example we would expect "I was finally alone with him".

If someone after a rape says "we went together" the "we" is not explained by saying "thats because she means they went together".


Hey Jude said...

Being alone with Biden had been very important to her and she never was until that time. We already know that they were alone as she had said that previously - it's not necessary to the narrative there. When she says it again, it's as a sad reminiscence, or "artificial placement of emotions". That's how I understand it

Read Peter's analysis again - there is no unity after the event.

___

Yes, there probably would be a dress code in a senator's office - maybe that's why she felt the need to justify not wearing tights, whilst wearing heels. I don't know - equally, though, you'd think she'd say there hadn't been a dress code if there wasn't one. She wasn't wearing tights/stockings after she had been asked to dress more conservatively, so there's that, too. Times change but back then it would have been considered unprofessional, disrespectful and lacking self-respect to not wear tights or stockings in the workplace it would be like being half-dressed.

Hey Jude said...

I can’t see the comment now, maybe it is on another thread, but someone remarked on Tara saying Dennis “dealt with me”. I noticed that too. TR probably says Dennis ‘dealt with me” because she recognises now that she was seen as a difficult member of staff. She made complaints and viewed as harassment that which her colleagues regarded as a compliment. They may have seen that as her putting herself above them. Certainly, she asserted herself, as she was able to persuade her superior to relent “fifty percent” on the make-up of the new interns - she maybe embroidered that a little as she said she wanted “diversity” which wasn’t a buzz word back then. Whatever her reason, she didn’t want only “privileged” DuPont kids under her, regardless she had been “firmly” told to hire only DuPont employees’ kids. She saw implementing her own agenda as a “regular work challenge”. Her own agenda can be seen as laudable, and the existing practice as nepotistic, but she was very junior, and probably did herself no favours there, especially if promises had been made. That is to say - when they kept finding fault with her work, and she found herself to be someone to be “dealt with”, it maybe was because she was confrontational, agenda driven, and didn’t do, or was reluctant to do, what she was told. Politics is all about agendas, and competing agendas, but in view of how junior she was, maybe she wculd better have presented it as a suggestion for the next year’s intake of interns.

She was “come-hither” towards Biden, though horrified when he did, and in the way he did. Even then he still did not ask a relevant question, only “Do you wanna go somewhere else?” It must have seemed relevant to him, but what a vicious man to say what he did.

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Colorado Mom disappears on bike ride. Hubby says he was out of town.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/05/17/honey-i-love-you-suzanne-morphews-husband-speaks-out-for-first-time-in-wifes-disappearance/

“Oh Suzanne, if anyone is out there that can hear this, that has you, please, we’ll do whatever it takes to bring you back,” said Barry Morphew. “We love you. We miss you. The girls need you. No questions asked. However much they want, I will do whatever it takes to get you back. Honey, I love you. I want you back so bad.”

Just found this when looking on crimeomline. Does the husband beleive somebody has his wife? Who is he addressing in his statement?

Adrian.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A nine-year-old autistic boy from Florida who sparked a desperate search overnight after being abducted from his mother's car by two men looking to score drugs was found dead in a lake this morning.

Authorities in Miami-Dade confirmed early Friday that a body discovered floating in a lake in the area of SW 62 Street and 138 Court was that of Alejandro Ripley, reported CBS Miami.

The lake at the Miccosukee Golf and Country Club where the boy's body was found in located just 4 miles from the spot where he was abducted the night before.

There was no immediate word on Alejandro's cause or manner of death.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Thursday night issued an Amber Alert for Alejandro, who was kidnapped in the parking lot of a Home Depot at 15750 SW 88th Street in Miami just before 9pm.

The agency posted a message on Facebook on Friday saying the alert has been cancelled, adding: 'we are very sad to report that the child was found deceased.'

So far, no arrests have been announced in connection to the boy's kidnapping and death.

According to the agency, Alejandro, who was autistic and non-verbal, was pulled out of his mother's car by two black men driving a light blue four-door sedan.

One of the suspects was possibly wearing all black clothing and a black bandanna as a face mask, and may have had cornrows in his hair.

A spokesperson for the Miami Police Department said during a press briefing overnight that Alejandro's mother, 47-year-old Patricia Ripley, was driving in The Hammocks area of the city when she noticed a car following her.

Shortly after, the pursuing vehicle forced the woman off the road and crashed into her car to block her in, reported NBC Miami.

A male passenger then emerged from his vehicle, approached Ripley and demanded drugs.

Miami police detective Angel Rodriguez said that when the mother insisted that she had no illegal narcotics in her possession, the bandit snatched her cellphone and pulled her son out of the vehicle.

The pair of kidnappers with the child in tow were last seen driving southbound.

Alejandro was described as standing at 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighing 120lbs, with black hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing a blue Captain America shirt, black shorts, and black Crocs shoes. He has a scar on his left leg.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8347943/Body-autistic-boy-9-abducted-Florida-lake.html


I am not buying this story.
Is this another case of the bushy haired stranger/black man?

There is a motive for his death in that he was autistic and non verbal.
A Susan Smith perhaps?

frommindtomatter said...

The story from my previous post is developing as more information becomes available. The husband made a 25 second video appeal seven days after his wife went missing. The transcript of that is in my previous post.

To begin with we have a husband who waited seven days before making an appeal. The appeal is very short and it is unclear what he hoped to achieve from it as his language was unexpected. We expect him to tell us his priorities in his message, which should include statements of concern over his wife’s safety and well-being. Also we look to see if he will plea to the public for any information regarding sightings of her and tell them any relevant information such as what she was wearing and her last known location etc…

From his words we seek insight into what he is thinking and what he believes at the moment he makes his statement. In context his wife is missing so we expect he will have drawn some conclusions from his knowledge of the situation. For instance if they had been arguing and/or the relationship was poor, we look to see if he asks her to “please come back” and talks of things like “working things out” etc… If he believes she has met with foul play then we expect talk of “abductors/kidnappers” along with a possible direct plea to them. If he believes she has had an accident or is lost then we expect him to plea to the public giving locations and times and a description of her. We would also look for him to talk of “finding” her. We know at this point -

He waited seven days before making his appeal which shows a lack of urgency and desperation on his part.

He failed to show concern about her welfare which is very worrying as we expect this as a priority in any case where a loved one is missing.

If we were to make a mistake and interpret his words like many people will, we would conclude he believes his wife has been kidnapped (although he fails to say it). If we look at his words do they suggest he believes she has been abducted?

After saying his wife’s name he states:

“if anyone is out there that can hear this, that has you,”

He begins with “if”, which speaks to a possibility, and adds conditions to the words that follow.

The first condition is connected to who he is addressing his statement to. We see he is speaking to “anyone”, which is none specific; here we expect to hear him use “you”, as this would show he is singling a person out, in this case someone who has his with. If he believes there is a kidnapper then he would address them directly, and we should now be aware that he may not believe there is one due to his failure to do so.

By starting his statement with “if” he has set up a list of conditions which must be met... The first I just mentioned is “if” there is “anyone”, which allows for there not to be anyone. Next they must be “out there” which is unnecessary as it states what should be obvious, unless they are not “out there”. The next condition is if they “can hear this” and finally “that has you”. All of these conditions must be met in order for the husbands next words to be of value. This long list of conditions seriously weakens the idea that the husband believes his wife has been abducted. When looking at the case most people would have drawn the conclusion she has met foul play in some form, yet the husband shows weakness is his words which may suggest he may know more about what has happened.

It is also clear by following the pronouns he is not addressing a kidnapper/abductor.

If the husband believed his wife had been kidnapped I expect him to beg for her return and give the kidnapper details as to how this can be done. This would be crucial if any hope of having her returned safely is possible. Unfortunately his statement is short in length, lacks concern and is made too late. What has led the husband to exhibit this behaviour?

Adrian.

jaxhellokitty said...

The husband shakes his head NO thru the entire clip. He does not want her back. IMO he did something to her and staged the bike & personal items in hopes he would get away with murder.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic and further to my previous post.

A Miami woman faked her son's abduction after trying to drown him twice, with witnesses rescuing the boy from a canal the first time, and the second attempt ending in the boy's death, officials said Saturday.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said Patricia Ripley, 45, is facing attempted and premeditated murder charges and being held in jail with no bond. No attorney was listed in jail records.

The boy, Alejandro Ripley, 9, was autistic and nonverbal. He was found floating in a canal Friday.

In an interview Saturday, Fernandez Rundle said Ripley apparently tried to drown her son an hour earlier at a different canal but nearby residents heard yelling and rescued him. Then, Fernandez Rundle said, Ripley drove her son to another canal.

'Unfortunately when she took him to the second canal, and there was no one there,' Fernandez Rundle said in an interview with The Associated Press.

'She tried it once, and people rescued him. He was alive. He could have stayed alive. She intended, from all the facts of the case, to kill him.'

Fernandez Rundle said an autopsy was being done on the boy Saturday to determine if he had other injuries or perhaps had something toxic in his system. She said no decision has been made yet on whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty.

Fernandez Rundle also noted that because the boy was nonverbal, he could not have told his initial rescuers what had happened with his mother.

'He can´t say anything to his rescuers. We talk about children being voiceless. This is another level of voicelessness. He was incapable of saying that `mommy put me in the water.´'

Miami-Dade police department says the mother first claimed she was ambushed by two black men who demanded drugs and took her cellphone, tablet and son, before fleeing Thursday night, prompting an Amber Alert in the area south of Miami.

The boy's body was pulled out of a golf course canal early Friday as police continued to interrogate the woman.

An arrest affidavit says she provided 'conflicting statements,' and finally was confronted with statements of witnesses and video footage showing the first attempt to push the boy into the canal.

The document says she recanted her story and admitted she drove to another site and led the boy into the canal stating 'he's going to be in a better place'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351077/Police-Miami-mom-faked-sons-abduction-faces-murder-charge.html


Do I win the prize?

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Developing story of missing 5 year old boy on crime online.

https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/05/28/missing-desperate-search-resumes-for-non-verbal-autistic-ohio-boy/

Not much in way of statements, although there is a post from the mothers FB -

“Edit: thank you everyone for searching. If this goes on till morning, they want anyone who is able to search to meet at the clubhouse at the park at 7am. Thanks again

Please keep your eyes open. My son Isaac is missing. He’s only in his underpants. He is autistic. He does know his name, my name and Austin’s name.”

It is reported he went missing from his home.

It seems her original post was the lower paragraph which would have been posted around the time he went missing, with the top paragraph added later after searches were made.

Her FB first post presumably would be seen by those she is friends with on FB. What stands out is she opens her statement with “Please keep your eyes open”, yet fails to give information of where the boy was last seen. It is not expected a five year old will be able to travel far on foot so giving a location where people should keep their eyes open is crucial.

In her follow up later statement she says “if [this] goes on till morning”. It is unclear by her statement if she is talking of the search or the situation of her son being missing. We have the word “if” which sets conditions to be met, and here the condition given is “this goes on till morning”. If the condition is met she says “[they] want anyone who is able to search to meet at the clubhouse”. The “they” is in reference to the authorities and by using the pronoun “they” she excludes herself from the statement. She could have said “we” and included her “want” for people to search to meet at the clubhouse.

There isn’t much to go on at the moment, but it is always concerning when a young child goes missing as parents strive to avoid situations where a child could get of sight or reach of them. Hopefully Isaac will be found safe and well, but he has been missing overnight which is extremely worrying.

Adrian.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

FORT JENNINGS — A volunteer rescue worker found the body of a missing 5-year-old boy with non-verbal autism on Thursday afternoon.

The remains of Isaac Schroeder were discovered in a log jam along the bank of the Auglaize River, south of Road R, about three-quarters of a mile downstream from his home, at 5:07 p.m. Thursday, according to Capt. Brad Brubaker, of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office.

Isaac Schroeder has been missing since around 3 p.m. Wednesday. Putnam County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Brad Brubaker announced at 4 p.m. Thursday that the search had expanded past the 12 miles along the Auglaize River and three miles around Schroeder’s residence already searched.

“The sheriff’s office extends out sympathies to the Schroeder family and also want to thank the hundreds of volunteers and public safety officials that assisted in the search of Isaac,” Brubaker said in a press release.

More than 900 volunteers turned out to Fort Jennings Park to assist in the search. The FBI and Ohio BCI joined the search as well Thursday afternoon.

A press conference has been scheduled for 8 p.m. in Fort Jennings.

Schroeder’s residence lies on the bank of the Auglaize River, so the search has been concentrated there. According to reports, Schroeder was recovered by his mother, Sarah Schroeder, when he was playing along the river two years ago.

The sheriff’s office received a 911 call from the boy’s mother at 3:09 p.m. Wednesday. Brubaker said the child likely left his home through a garage door, and no foul play or abduction was suspected. He was average build with short, blonde hair, according to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office. Schroeder was wearing only Thomas the Train underpants at the time.

Those interested in joining the search signed up at the Fort Jennings Park recreation building, where they were deployed in groups to areas not yet been searched. Participants were encouraged to stay away from the river and wooded areas after dark so no one gets lost or injured.

Those with information should call Crime Stoppers at 419-231-3030 or the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office at 419-523-3208.

Dive teams and boats from the Continental Fire Department, Delphos Fire and Rescue, American Township in Allen County and Allen Township in Hancock County assisted in water searches. Other agencies who assisted in the search included the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio State Patrol and LifeFlight.

https://www.limaohio.com/news/412040/body-found-missing-5-year-old-autism

frommindtomatter said...

That is sad news.

Adrian.

Javier said...

Hey guys, can i get a second opinion on this? the messages are from his husband.

https://imgur.com/a/6ROrvXk

https://imgur.com/a/55L1luJ

MISSING ADULT: EMILY NOBLE Delaware-Franklin County / Westerville, Ohio

Missing from: Westerville, Ohio. Emily was last seen at her residence in Westerville, Ohio on the evening of 5/24/2020.

Age: 52

Gender: Female

Race/Ethnicity: White

Height: 5'0"

Weight: 100 lbs

Hair color: Brown (Naturally Curly)

Eye color: Brown

If you have information contact Westerville Police Department at (614) 901-6881.

Buckley said...

http://www.citypages.com/news/threatening-notes-left-at-houses-with-black-lives-matter-signs/570960031

Practice with anonymous letters

frommindtomatter said...

OY Emily Noble -

“It’s now 5:20 am on Tuesday may 26th. I last saw Emily on Sunday night here at our condo in Westerville. When I got up on Monday, late morning, she was gone. Her car is still in the garage. Please contact me if you any information about her whereabouts. Matt Moore.”

Javier, from the links you gave it appears the husband used his wife’s FB to post the above message. If this is his first post using her account, then we would expect his motive was to reach out to anyone she knows in the hope that someone has seen her, knows where she is, or can help find her.

The context of a missing wife sets up what language we expect to hear, and what the priority of the statement should be. With his wife missing it is expected he will ask early on, “Has anyone seen or spoken to Emily?” This is something which will be very important to him and he will be desperate to find out if any of her friends have had contact with her. By asking that question he would show that in his mind he has a belief she is out there somewhere. Also we expect he will show concern over her well-being and speak of being worried etc…

Although the statement is short we find the focus and priority of it is on himself. The most important thing on his mind will be said first, and he tells us “It’s now 5:20 am on Tuesday may 26th”. Time is the most important to him, and he uses the word “now”, which is a comparative word when marking it. He could have said “It’s 5:20 am on Tuesday” but by adding the word “now” he shows he is comparing this time against another earlier one. It is “now” as opposed to then. It is in the next sentence we expect to hear something along the lines of “Emily is missing has anyone heard from her”. This would show concern for Emilys whereabouts/ situation. Instead the husbands priority is to make known to others when the last time he saw her was – “I last saw Emily on Sunday night”. This shows he deems that information more important than the fact she is missing, and gives it priority over asking if anyone has seen her. The order of information given in a statement is important and it is expected the husband will first tell us Emily is missing and ask if others have heard from her before he tells his story of when he last saw her etc… By not asking her friends if they have seen her it suggests he expects they have not which raises red flags.

“When I got up on Monday, late morning, she was gone.”

Here the focus is on himself again through his second use of the pronoun “I”. He has told us the current time and made two statements both focusing on himself. Also we see the statement has many references concerning time which shows this information is sensitive to the speaker. In a missing persons case time is critical, but it is how it is focused on which is important. The husband’s use of “late morning” is vague and avoids him having to give a specific time which points to sensitivity over it. It also begs the question why he got up “late morning” and we would seek to discover if this was normal or if there was reason for it.

From what little information I could gather on the case it appears Emily left her phone, wallet and other personal items at home. Her husband would be privy to that yet has failed to include this information in his statement. He has also forgotten to include concern over her safety. Note the husband does not describe her as missing but instead “gone”. Hopefully more information and statements will become available.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

They investigate a pedophile in Germany for the killing of Madeleine Mc cann,
And a Boy who also vanished in Portugal and a Girl who vanished in Germany.

Christian B. Is Said to have bragged about His Crimes to others. He commited several crimes, including abuse of children and old Woman.

Turtlebabble said...

OT - Emily Noble

“It’s now 5:20 am on Tuesday may 26th. I last saw Emily on Sunday night here at our condo in Westerville. When I got up on Monday, late morning, she was gone. Her car is still in the garage. Please contact me if you any information about her whereabouts. Matt Moore.”


Adrian, you make good points about his focus on time. It is interesting how he is very specific about “5.20am on Tuesday may 26th”, then becomes very vague with “Sunday night” and “Monday, late morning”. If your wife was missing you would be going over every minute detail trying to work out what happened. You would surely have pin pointed what time “Sunday night” you “saw her”, and what time Monday morning you “got up”. That window of time would be critical.

Also, are Facebook posts timestamped? Is it necessary to tell us the exact time he is posting this message?


Other things I noted.

“I last saw Emily on Sunday night here at our condo in Westerville.”

This sounds strange. He “saw” her. It’s like a witness statement. It’s how one would speak of a neighbour or a person they see infrequently. This is his wife. Did he speak to her? Did he interact with her? It sounds distant. I would have expected “Emily was here at our condo in Westerville Sunday night”.


“When I got up on Monday, late morning, she was gone.”

This reminds me of parents of missing children in calls to 911 saying “I woke up and he’s not here”, telling us “I was asleep, so I don’t know what happened”. It speaks to forming an alibi. Does he think he needs an alibi?

He doesn’t tell us he was asleep, he says he “got up”. This implies he was asleep, but that is not what he said.

Hey Jude said...

OT - Emily Noble

“When I got up on Monday, late morning, she was gone.” - He doesn’t say he was asleep during the night, though the reader can be expected to infer that he was asleep when Emily went missing,. This could be alibi building. Time is very sensitive to him.

In the second post:
“I’m looking for help to do our own search around this area. At noon tomorrow 46 Abbey Ln Westerville OH. Please post this to your pages, my number is ****** I pray to God that we don’t find her so keep looking for her in your area and keep posting on your social media.”

He’s not in a great rush to do his own search - he’s looking for help, but it can wait until midday tomorrow. He prays to God that she isn’t found. Calls upon divinity can indicate deception. Why does he not want his missing wife found? He does not say he fears that she might be dead, though the reader might be expected to infer this. He is looking to search “round” his own area, but he also does not want her found SO - “keep looking in your area” - look there, not here? Is his missing wife close to home?

Why doesn’t he want his missing wife to be found?

In both posts he says “here at our condo” - did something happen to Emily at their condo?

Why does he say her car is “still” in the garage, rather than “in the garage”?


Sharon said...

Compare this post to that of the husband:

"My friend Emily Noble (Em) disappeared without keys, phone, wallet on Memorial Day. She was seen 10am heading for a walk near County Line and State St in Westerville. She is 5′, 95 lbs, long brown hair, caucasion. If sighted call Westerville Police investigations at 614-901-6881."

Tania Cadogan said...

Re:Madeleine McCann

The German 'suspect' was investigated years ago by the Portuguese police and discounted.

I wonder why all this sudden media interest?
when stuff like this happens, it usually means something has cropped up that the mccanns don't want to the public to know about or be disinterested in/minimized.

All this still fails to explain the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs to the apartment, the hire car, kate's trousers, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat.
If he did actually kill her and it was in the apartment, why would he remove her body?
Dead bodies are extremely heavy and difficult to handle hence the phrase dead weight.
He would then have the problem of moving her body out of the apartment into whatever he used to move her without being caught and the disposing of her body at its final location.
It would have been far easier to have left her body in situ.
Since blood, body fluids, DNA and cadaverine were detected in the hire car which was blamed Maddie's sweaty sandals, dirty diapers and also other members of the family and even friend driving the hire car to explain the 15/19 markers (14 were too degraded to be identified at the time) and then blamed on rotting meat and fish for the horrible smell which was commented on by Michael Wright and also meant they left the trunk of the hire car open every night.
If the German guy hired the car before the mccanns, there would have been a record, they would also have noticed the smell and complained about it rather than ignoring it.
They would not have explained away the body fluids etc, they would have been demanding every test going to find out if their missing daughter could have been transported in the car before they hired it.
They would also not have come up with explanations for what was found in the apartment such as mosquitoes or nose bleeds, they would not have explained away the dog picking on kate's trousers as her being in contact allegedly with 6 corpses before their vacation, ditto for cuddle cat although they can't even agree when she got it or if it was her favorite toy/comforter like the now missing pink blanket or how it got on the t shirt.
Why when the dogs reacted in the apartment they could not explain it or had excuses rather than screaming and crying and demanding to know if it meant their daughter had been harmed or injured by the alleged abductor.

Why then did kate refuse to answer the 48 questions although technically it was more as several were compound questions) whilst answering the 49th

1. On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?

3. (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine was abducted, why did you leave the twins to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? The supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins then what happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say – what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm there?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside the group learn of her disappearance in those following minutes?

Tania Cadogan said...

cont.


15. Did any neighbour offer you help?

16. What does “we let her down” mean?

17. Did Jane Tanner tell you that night she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal, did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working. Why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40. Is it true sometimes you despaired at your children’s behaviour and it left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43. In the case files, you were shown canine forensic testing films. After watching them, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, carried out in a British lab, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?


and the 49th question which she did answer:


Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


Not the expected behavior of an innocent mother!

It also doesn't explain why the parents and chums refused to take part in a reconstruction.
As arguidos the parents were compelled to take part, they got round it by having their friends make so many demands and placing so many restriction on the PJ that is was impossible to do a reconstruction.
Claiming the PJ could use actors was ridiculous as only the mccanns and chums would know what they were doing where and when, plus with all the alleged checks, the group would have been up and down like yoyos.
Why would innocent people refuse to cooperate?
Surely they would have been demanding a reconstruction and taking part even if it was a painful reminder/memory.
Innocent family and friends of a missing/murdered loved one will still take part in a reconstruction if it finds their missing loved one.

Tania Cadogan said...

cont.


Why did they offer to take a polygraph and then when taken up on the offer, set so many conditions it was impossible to do?

In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.

Back in September 2007 the McCanns, as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known - albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.

"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request from the Portuguese authorities".


Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST', had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesperson, stepped forward to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.


And there the matter lay...

Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the McCanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy".

Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."

The accompanying headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, Clarence Mitchell was afforded the final word on the subject:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."


How did he have time to almost forensically clean the apartment leaving little DNA of Maddie in her bed or the children in the apartment in the few hours between the mccanns putting the children to bed at 19:30 and then the 22:00 hr check when Maddie was allegedly discovered missing and all the checks in between, leaving no smell of bleach etc, making Maddie's bed with the corner turned down and having the bed under the window all messed up>

It also does not explain away kate's infamous description on page 129 of Maddie in her exhibit 1 your Honor madeleine (with the title Madeleine all in lower case whilst kate's name is capitalized showing priority and also subtle demeaning of the victim)

Page 129: I asked Gerry apprehensively if he’d had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart. Although I knew I had to share this burden, just raising the subject out loud to someone else, even Gerry, was excruciating. Admitting the existence of these images somehow confirmed them as a real possibility, and with that confirmation came renewed waves of fear.

Tania Cadogan said...

cont.

Firstly, given they described Maddie as almost perfect when born, what parent ever describes their child's genitals as perfect?
Secondly, what innocent parent would ever put such a thing in a book supposedly written for their other children to read when older let alone the general public?

Page 276, Apart from describing her sex life, why would kate use these words in relation to Maddie?
The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again.
Firstly she use THIS (which is close rather than THAT (which is distancing(
Why does she place herself close to the alleged monster?
Why does she then use the words touching and Stroking her and perfect little body
Stroking is a gentle, loving term you would expect to see between lovers not between a paedophile and his victim.
No innocent parent would refer to a paedophile stroking their child
Defiling is an expected word.
Again she describes Maddie as having a perfect little body
We have seen all the subtle demeaning about Maddie from her immediate and extended family, things like being jealous of her siblings, being demanding, having tantrums etc yet we see kate again describing Maddie has having a perfect little body
This is unexpected from an innocent parent.
No mention is made about her having a perfect character, it is all about her appearance.
Scary especially given the description about what Maddie would do as spoken by david payne and reported to the PJ by the Drs Gaspar and also paynes extremely creepy and scary description of Maddie in his rogatory interview:

1485 "Okay. I'd like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.'
Reply "Mm, err Madeleine's err a very striking err beautiful child, I'd almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she'd got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry's, you know pride and joy. They'd had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she'd got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.'
1485 "Mm.'
00:15:30 Reply "You know I, you know a fact I've come across already you know she was a, she's a very bright child you know, she wouldn't be the kind of mischievous child who you know and just try and get out of the flat and you know get up to mischief and that, you know, there's fun in all children but she certainly wasn't that kind of child. She was very bright.'


Tania Cadogan said...

cont.

I wonder what type of fun we could have with Maddie?
What was the kind of interaction that could be had with Maddie?
Was it the same kind of interaction that adults had that children had?
What was the difference if any?
What was the difference between payne interacting with Maddie and having fun with Maddie?
She interacted with payne and other children but played with Lily.
Why did she interact with other children rather than play with them?
Why the focusing on her appearance first rather than her character and personality?
Why describe her as Doll like
Note of course all the paste tenses!
what type of fun does he mean when he said " there's fun in all children but she certainly wasn't that kind of child.
Was there a bad child to interact with she was a very good child to, to interact with.
Note the qualifier very and the stutter on the word to
15 x was's
She'd
Could
23 x you know
1 x correction from past to present tense - She was, you know, very, she is
9 x She was, you know, very, she is
2 x interact
2 x fun
2 x unique
3 x bright
1 x self referral as I said on the other, earlier recording


They do not call out to Maddie unless prompted and even then is is minimal, almost as if they lost a watch.
They do not call out to the alleged paedophile abductor.
In all the interviews and chances to send a message they don't, even from the get go.
Not forgetting the fact they never searched, instead they played tennis and went jogging, not the expected behavior of innocent parents.

Over the last 13 years, their language and behavior tells us they know Maddie is dead and knew from the get go making the fund a fraud.
They have told us Maddie is dead.
Kate has described perfectly what a corpse looks like when they have been dead for a couple of days, unembalmed and kept cold ""I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying cold and mottled, on a big grey stone slab."
As an ex doctor, she would have seen dead bodies but they would have been fresh (when called out to confirm a death as a GP, although as a p/t locum, this would have been very uncommon, and her only other exposure would have been in medical school and they would have been embalmed and the classes would not have been over a long period) She is describing when she last saw Maddie.

Also the description of this alleged paedophile abductor does not match the discounted description of the alleged abductor as seen by tanner.
The abductor was described as dark hair yet this german 'suspect' is blonde.
Did he go back in time and dye his hair?

What will Scotland yard say?
What will Portugal say more importantly since the crime took place there and it is they who will prosecute the case?
Is this man going to be the patsy?
Will kate and gerry let him take the fall, Innocent of this crime although guilty of others?
Will they testify in court as to their behavior that week?
What is the penalty for perjury?

My apologies for this very long post.
Big hugs all round xx

Javier said...

Thanks for the replys guys, i reached similar conclusions, trying to get a hold on the 911 call.

Javier said...

Regarding the case of Emily Noble (dissapeared in westerville, ohio).

I found out that the husband (Matheau L. Moore) of Emily had two sons from previous partners, and both died, the younger was Joseph Moore he hung himself with a guitar string while Em was away in Belize on 1/7/2019. I cant find any information regarding the first son. I know Matheau lived in Ohio, NY state, and Las Vegas. If anyone has the means to investigate this further, ill apreciate it, I live in Argentina, cant do much about it.

Ive asked her friends which im helping out to request the 911 call but aparently he called directly to the police station and that aint public record.

thanks
Javier