Thursday, July 9, 2020

The Use of Divine Witness in a Statement


How does the use of a Divine witness impact language?

"I swear to God that..." indicates the subject has a need to call upon a Divine witness to his words. It may be that the subject is telling the truth in this point, but is not elsewhere. Habitually dishonest people will feel a need for affirmation of their words.  It belies the lack of confidence one may have in his own words.

What of prayer during an assault? It is a signal of emotion.  It is not that the person prayed that we analyze: it is the entrance into the language.  

This was from an assault investigation: 

"...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and ..."

An interview in an assault case produced this sentence.  As the Interviewer listened, he was convinced of the pain he was hearing in the woman's voice. He asked me to listen to the audio and provide feedback into whether or not she was truthful. 

I had said that the pain is real, and the assault is real, but she's lying about when this took place and by whom. 

...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and..."

In the interview she produced sensory description which is something that can signal that it was experienced but exactly when it was experienced...years ago, or today, as the crime is being alleged, is not answered. 

Perseveration can be indicated in adults with developmental disabilities as well as trauma victims. 

This is where one repeats detail from an earlier assault, yet states it in the present, with a new subject accused. 

It is challenging to discern. 

Then there are those who are outright falsely accusing someone of an assault and when they deceive, it is impossible to do so from a vacuum, therefore they choose wording from somewhere:

a movie, book, story, or...

from an actual event from the past. 

In this interview, I believed that not only was she lying about what happened now within a criminal investigation, but she was truthfully reporting what happened to her years ago.  

The inclusion of her emotion tells us that this account has been processed by her, which takes time. This assault was reported to have just taken place. 

Discourse Analysis: listening to an interview. 

If one can picture a system of (+) and (-) as an interview 'goes by' audibly, this can help.  

It is sometimes difficult to follow the formula for reliability at first, but with practice that is specifically done with audio and then transcripts, the twain do eventually meet.  

As the audible goes by, each signal of reliability is given a mark on the notebook that shows a (+) and each signal of sensitivity is given a (-) and when there is a near balance of the two, such as

5 (+)

(-) 

It is something that must be further explored because there is enough signals that memory is at play, but there are also enough signals that deception is at play, too. 

People often want easy answers, but human nature is complex.  

Sometimes people reliably report an assault, but will indicate selfish, illicit or exploitative motives. 

The motive does not negate the reliable reporting. 

Another may report reliably some facets of an assault, while being deceptive in others. 

For example, one who was reliably assaulted may also reveal the use of illegal drugs during the event. This can undermine credibility, yet we seek to separate the allegation from possible attendant crimes. 


...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and..."

The word "as" speaks to time and the reaction to being suddenly grabbed is hormonal---fight or flight survival.  

"just" compares praying to something (or everything) else in the mind. It takes time to think of alternatives to compare prayer to.  

When initially recounted, the commitment is strong:


"He grabbed me and I screamed..."

This is to report what happened. There is no equivocation and there is strong psychological presence in the pronouns.  

When this has been processed via re-telling often, the emotions are added as the subject has had time to speak of it, allowing for deeper thought. Each time the account is recalled, the subject ponders further (which often produces, "why?" in assaults, which may lead to distress). 

I believed the subject experienced an assault, and that her pain was real, but the assault was not current, and not from the man she has accused. 

This is where someone is lying but using experiential memory to do so.  It is something to specifically train for. 

I said that I believed this particular allegation would lead to a failed polygraph in spite of the strong sensory description and the affect of the subject during the entire interview.  

I watched the video of the interview.  

In listening to the subject, I too heard the pain coming from her and the accurate description of an assault, but I did not hear her connect the assault with the accused. 

I also noted "Divinity" in her statement.  

"Divinity" within the interview, in various wording, when used to affirm one's words,  is a red flag for deception and beneath it is a desire to persuade someone. It may also be a form of ingratiation where the subject hopes the interviewer will pity the subject, with emotion clouding judgement. 

"I am a God fearing..." in a criminal investigation is to say 'we wouldn't do such a thing because of our belief...' rather than "I did not..." 

It is similar to one accused of pedophilia who says "I am a happily married man..." rather than to deny the accusation. 

The signal in the statement above shows that this event had been long processed in the brain and the fear of it something that was reflected in the voice. 

She failed her polygraph.  

It is not so much that a person uses some form of Divinity in a statement but the context of the statement, audible or written that is key.  

An assault victim in counseling will have emotions within the statement as exploration of thought and reaction has taken place. This is a form of contamination that must be considered. Repeat interviews can cause it as well. 

This was a police investigation of a crime that was alleged to have just taken place.  

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 



97 comments:

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

Police on Missing 2-Year-Old Philly Boy: ‘Somebody Isn't Telling Us the Truth'

Philadelphia police are asking for the public’s help in finding a missing toddler.

So far there are conflicting reports regarding when King Hill, 2, was last seen.

The boy's mother said she hasn't seen him in a month after he didn't return from a stay with another family member.

Police initially said King Hill was listed as missing from his home along Page Street near 31st Street in the Strawberry Mansion neighborhood around 9:50 a.m. Tuesday, Philadelphia police said Thursday.

During a Thursday evening press conference, police said the boy may have been seen over the weekend but they did not say by whom.

King's mother, Amber Hill, told NBC10 that she actually last saw her son in early June when she left him off with his stepfather, a trusted father figure who he normally spends time with.

"I miss him a lot," a distraught Hill said.

Hill said she became alarmed earlier this week when the stepfather texted to say he had dropped off King with a babysitter. Hill said she doesn't know the babysitter well.

The babysitter reportedly said she had dropped off King with her, but Hill never saw her son.

"Somebody is not telling us the truth. Yes. That's correct," Philadelphia Police Capt. Mark Burgmann said. "Because the babysitter is saying she returned the child to the mother and mother is saying, 'No. She did not.'"

Hill doesn't believe King is hurt, but she is pleading for him to be returned home.

"They were looking at me like I did something to him," Hill said while in tears. "But I would never do nothing to none of my kids."

He didn’t wander off and the Special Victims Unit is handling the active search for King, police said. Sources said part of the investigation is sorting out King's whereabouts prior to going missing.

Investigators could be seen searching for clues in the neighborhood Thursday morning. Thursday evening, detectives searched a location near 53rd and Montgomery in Wynnefield. Sources told NBC10 the location is the home of the babysitter. A woman who did not want to be identified told NBC10 the missing child looked familiar.

"There was a party there not too long ago and I seen that kid running around," she said. "I definitely seen that baby."

Police said everyone is cooperating with the investigation.

King has brown eyes, black hair, is around 3 feet tall and weighs around 32 pounds.

Anyone who spots King Hill should call SVU investigators at 215-685-3251 or call 911.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/have-you-seen-him-philly-police-search-for-missing-2-year-old-boy/2461774/

John Mc Gowan said...


"They were looking at me like I did something to him," Hill said while in tears. "But I would never do nothing to none of my kids."

I find this an interesting paragraph and very sensitive.

Note a possible "Embedded Admission". She is not using another's language. These are her words. We believe what people tell us.
Not the conditional "would never"
Note that she uses the negative 3 times making it highly sensitive. What does "nothing" look like
. This has me wondering has she in the past been accused of harming her "kids" Psychologically and or physically" ?

frommindtomatter said...

I just watched the video clip and there are two omissions in the transcript which add more to the statement. There is a stuttering “I”, and stutter on “to”. The latter could be a self-censor. Its possible she was going to say “I would never do nothing to King”, which would name him directly, but instead changed to “none of my kids”, which would avoid connecting him with that statement.

"They were looking at me like [I, I] did something to him," Hill said while in tears. "But I would never do nothing [to, to] none of my kids."

Adrian.

N said...

Off topic - current case that no one will discuss - Can anyone help with this statement?

ChAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) – The husband of Suzanne Morphew released a video pleading for his wife’s safe return. Suzanne disappeared one week ago on May 10 after a bike ride.

“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.”

Shelley said...

You guys see the Wayfair trafficking claims?

Storage shelves (normally a few hundred) selling for $13 k. All with names of missing kids. $9k pillows also with names of missing kids.

This is the companies statement.i at first thought maybe the screenshot were photoshopped but nope.

“There is, of course, no truth to these claims. The products in question are industrial grade cabinets that are accurately priced. Recognizing that the photos and descriptions provided by the supplier did not adequately explain the high price point, we have temporarily removed the products from the site to rename them and to provide a more in-depth description and photos that accurately depict the product to clarify the price point.”

Shelley said...

Wayfair has been accused of human trafficking. Pillows selling for $9k with names of missing kids. Cabinets selling for $17k. Same thing.

Thought on the company statement.

I first wondered if the screen shots were photoshopped and was alarmed that Wayfair took them down and said they will update details to validate high prices.

“There is, of course, no truth to these claims. The products in question are industrial grade cabinets that are accurately priced. Recognizing that the photos and descriptions provided by the supplier did not adequately explain the high price point, we have temporarily removed the products from the site to rename them and to provide a more in-depth description and photos that accurately depict the product to clarify the price point.”

John Mc Gowan said...

Mother of King Hill pleads for child’s safe return

This is edited and not enough to conclude involvement. She does however use language which is unexpected and concerning.
I don't know if she is responding to questions.

"I still have faith, still have faith. That hes still out there and hes breathing. I'm guilty thinking my son was in good hands and everything like that, im guilty of that, but I'm not guilty of my son being missing. I just want to let people know that..I want my son. He was never dropped of to me, never. If you don't want to bring him back to me because you feel like I'm not nothing. Take him to the police station take him to the hospital, take him to DHS, take him somewhere that he can, he can get help and then i can be aware that hes safe."

Note the strong use of "my" connecting her and taking ownership of her son.
As I said there is not enough to conclude eather way but I do believe there may have issues in the past concerning his welfare.

https://www.fox29.com/news/someones-not-telling-the-truth-police-continue-search-for-2-year-old-missing-since-tuesday

frommindtomatter said...

N said...

“Off topic - current case that no one will discuss - Can anyone help with this statement?”

I made a comment and some analysis on that statement, it’s on this page.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2020/05/tara-reade-interview-analyzed.html

There was also a guy went up to where they were searching who recorded him answering some questions (without Morphews permission) and posted it up on YouTube. I have a transcript of that; I will look for it later and post it up.

Adrian.

N said...

@ Adrian Thank you

Anonymous said...

https://littleapplepost.com/posts/3cfcb40d-7db5-42c9-b1c7-b4abfe4b93b2

frommindtomatter said...

OT Suzanne Morphew:

A guy on YouTube called Tyson Draper went up to help search for Suzanne. He spoke with Barry Morphew and recorded the conversation on his Go Pro camera I believe. I am sure it will still be on YouTube if you haven’t already seen it. There was a lot of talking, too much for me to transcribe, but I did make a transcript of the below question and answer.

“Let me ask you a quick question Barry. So you were in Denver, but how long before someone noticed that she was gone?”

BM: Well it was mother’s day so… um… we err, we had two daughters that were coming home from a trip. And I had that job in Denver that… I wanted to get started on, on Sunday. Set it up for my workers, my workers are coming in Sunday night. Normally I don’t work Sunday night, I work Monday, but I being the owner, I wanted to get everything lined up for them so that I didn’t have to worry about Monday morning, just get busy working.

So I told my wife, I said listen the girls are gonna be home and they want to spend mother’s day with you, mind if I go? She said that’s fine. The girls, and that’s what we thought would happen. The girls were running late so they texted happy mother’s day, but she didn’t text back. So we went to, well, they called my neighbours and said listen, its mother’s day, I’m a little worried, and will you go check the house. And the neighbour who checked the house saw that her car was there but her bike was gone.

She called me in Denver and said hey we`re just a little worried and I go, well….. I am too, why don’t we just call the Police to be safe.

So the above was Barry`s answer to the simple question “how long before someone noticed that she was gone?” Note after all that talking he failed to answer the question he was asked. Upon reading, it becomes clear exactly what the priority of his statement is. He wants us to know he wasn’t there, and he spends a lot of energy telling us why. He wants us to know he has an alibi.

“Normally I don’t work Sunday night, I work Monday, but”

By his own admission he is telling us he has done something abnormal. We find the time he does something which is not normal coincides with his wife going missing.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Mother of King Hill pleads for child’s safe return

"I [still have faith, still have faith]. That he’s [still out there] and [he’s breathing]. I'm guilty thinking my son was in good hands and [everything like that], I’m guilty of that, but I'm not guilty of my son being missing. I [just] want to let people know that… I want my son. He was [never] dropped off to me, [never]. If you don't want to bring him back to me [because] you feel like I'm not nothing. Take him to the police station take him to the hospital, take him to DHS, take him somewhere that he can, he can get help and then i can be aware that he’s safe."

"I [still have faith, still have faith] – x2 makes it sensitive. Repeating her words actually weakens them as it shows a need to double down on what she believes. This weakness is connected with time as she uses the word “still” to link the passing of time with her belief. She says she has faith up to and including the present time, but its weakness is signalled by her need to repeat it.

“That he’s [still out there] and [he’s breathing]”

We see the use of “still” again speaking to the passage time, and it is connected to the passive statement, “out there”. If someone says “my car is still out there”, we know that the car was there before and when they last checked it was “still” there. “Still” signals a measurement of time. It begins with the first measurement of it being out there. This is the reference point “still” is based against. Every time the car is checked it is not just there, but “still there”.

Note she doesn’t give possession of her son to anyone or give a specific location where he may be. He is only “out there”. She could have said “that somebody has him” (insert name of suspect), or something similar. If she believes him to be with someone we expect her to tell us. It is possible she has said something in other statements regarding location and who may have him. If she has we would look to her linguistic disposition towards those involved.

“and [he’s breathing]

She makes an interesting choice of words. Expected is that he is “alive”, but her mind has automatically selected the word “breathing”. This is a very specific word; it focuses on the action of breathing vs. the whole (being alive). This is concerning and it must be considered that she has some thought connected to her son and him “breathing” specifically. What’s interesting is how she built up to this; she referenced time (“still”) in relation to two of her three statements.

"I [still have faith, still have faith]. That he’s [still out there] and [he’s breathing].

“faith” and “out there” are fronted with the time reference “still”, whereas “breathing” isn’t.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

“I want my son” - three times the mother says “my son” but she does not use his name. Why is his name absent from her language? Perhaps she has said it elsewhere and the interview is edited.

King sounds an unwanted child; the mother left him for weeks or months with the stepfather, who in turn, left him with a babysitter.

Did she really believe her son was in good hands? Twice she says she is guilty, and once that she is not - “I’m not guilty of my son being missing.” Of interest, maybe, she doesn’t say that she does not know where he is - but as she leaves him with the stepfather for weeks or months, it may not be her habit to know or be concerned as to where, precisely, he is. However, if she does know where he is, then he’s not “missing”, to her. To say she is not guilty of him being missing is not to say she is not guilty of something else. She may not be, but she hasn’t ruled herself out.

In that of her available speech, she has not said she doesn’t know what happened to King, where he is, or (really) expressed concern for his welfare. She provides a believable motive for somebody to take/hide her son rather than return him “because you feel like I’m not nothing.”

It seems she is addressing the babysitter. Does she know or believe the babysitter might have had concerns about her son? Why might the mother say the babysitter “feels I’m not nothing”? She does not agree that she’s “not nothing” - she’s not even saying that anyone actually said it, only that someone might feel that way about her - that seems a bit like too much information, especially from the mother of a missing child, yet she finds it necessary to say, It may be that the babysitter has said something like that, but it seems unnecessary, and self-damning, for the mother to say it, unless her reason is to show that whoever felt that way had that as a motive to not return her son.

She further addresses whoever had care of her son, and tells them to take him to the police, the hospital, and the DHS - where he can “get” help, so she can then be “aware” that he’s safe. That’s very distancing language - he’s a baby, not quite three. It may also be to cast blame for his need of that help on whoever had care of him at the time she says he was not dropped off to her.

She doesn’t sound eager to have him back - just to “be aware” that he’s safe - and maybe she finds it reasonable that a two year old can just “get” help from the police, hospital or DHS - maybe he can get his own apartment, too. It’s concerning that she introduces the police, hospital, and DHS - does she know he is injured, or could it be that as she doesn’t want to look after him, and the childcare is not working out, that just could be her thought process for the likely procedure for when he is found, that he will be placed in state care?

She sounds guilty, but that may be due to her not having care of him over weeks and months.


Hey Jude said...

“I miss him a lot.”


“They were looking at me like I did something to him," Hill said while in tears. "But I would never do nothing to none of my kids."


——-

It may not be true that she misses him a lot- she left him for weeks or months with his step-father. The concern of the mother should be that her child is safely returned.

She’s concerned about how they were looking at her, while her two year old son is missing - yet they no doubt made clear that one or other of a parent or step-parent of a missing toddler are most likely to know where he or she is, yet she doesn’t go to location, that she may know where he is, but to her having done something to him.

Is it interesting that she doesn’t say they looked at her like *they thought* she did something to him - but they looked at her like she did something? Thought would give space for other and different thoughts, but they are not looking like they (only?) thought she did something, they are looking like she did something - she’s not allowing for thought, or for herself to just think that’s what they thought - she sounds as if she has it all it sewn up.

Or - is “like” an alternative for “thought”? Maybe - “like I did something”, “as if I had done something”, “like they thought I did something” - in her choice of words, she seems to allow for less doubt.

Her concern is herself.

“But I would never do nothing to none of my kids” . it’s conditional, and vague. Why does she include all her kids, when it is the missing two year old who is of concern? The double negatives make a positive.

It would have been a right moment to volunteer a reliable denial, as she was making a denial anyway. “I don’t know where my son is.” would inspire more confidence than “I would never do nothing to none of my kids. “


John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update: Althea Bernstein (alleged racist attack with lighter fluid) 911 call.

Name, address and telephone number redacted. Start a 3:05 if you know the back story.

Audio.

https://youtu.be/1psmJurEaFE

Tania Cadogan said...

N said...

Off topic - current case that no one will discuss - Can anyone help with this statement?

ChAFFEE COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) – The husband of Suzanne Morphew released a video pleading for his wife’s safe return. Suzanne disappeared one week ago on May 10 after a bike ride.

“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.”

July 11, 2020 at 1:06 AM


Shouldn't that if anyone be To anyone?

John Mc Gowan said...

Another OT.

Boyfriend of missing Cape Coral woman speaks

It has been three weeks since Lauren Dumolo was last seen. Her boyfriend, Gabriel Pena, spoke to WINK News about what he thinks happened to his girlfriend.

“I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,” Pena said.

Pena recently was brought in by Cape Coral Police Department to take a polygraph test, and he claims that he passed. Police will not confirm this test result nor will they say if Pena is a suspect in Dumolo’s disappearance.

Pena, on the other hand simply misses his girlfriend and wants her to come home. “I’m worried. I’m worried and scared. Not scared because I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen.”

He says he last saw Lauren that Friday morning when he left for work. When he got home that evening, she was gone. He does have a theory about where she could’ve gone. “So my thing is that she went out with one of her friends. Her friend got her all messed up on drugs, and I don’t know what after that,” Pena said.

The police have deemed Dumolo’s disappearance suspicious. So far, Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers has received a few tips but no substantial leads.

“At this point, everything attached to Lauren has been flagged, so, if she went and used her credit card or debit card somewhere, we would know that,” said Trish Routte with Crime Stoppers. “So, with every hour that passes every day that passes, it becomes a little more desperate to find out where she is.”

Lauren’s father Paul Dumolo thinks his daughter is still alive but fears that she’ll become another cold case. “The wondering part is probably the worst, you know. Even if the answer is bad at least, you have closure,” he said.

Paul does also recognize that there’s a possibility she could be gone forever but doesn’t want to let his mind go there.

https://www.winknews.com/2020/07/10/boyfriend-of-missing-cape-coral-mother-speaks/?__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=7be3e191e904ca13cfc8409ea157a02181d4138e-1594639338-0-AaGmGviA_rJWHn-f0bV17SoNTHDhXtfm_PylFz-IlYfz-Qmfp_-AD7cuXdkdUskcMdueZiwxP0dcTEKzNgtGbe55jJTqdUTsljztiJz_0AAEzacPZNZ-mOxm3buX_V4W5eA6h5vaRaV_6XVcxkyjk_1kNbddWUpZaAWe17R_mJMoY61aJ1mcN8zkeaj3fx2Xszzot5Ed3Qfntd1Da82pMzFpeKSYKNKghFVO01O0oBZkKckask2tbNp4CXWuGDNdVU_T4r4FYyCBuWF0-g7LUBaEqWBUqD63ppiFRjXdOlDEfVKBU_Nun6oHoE3UX_bZfdVtT5v3iBMNuu4uksbSUkt7VZQz967cP06g-emTEitJ182w80TErQZimzEdE02z5U37eAc5toNXUm0LUcx8Vh9EI5RjxVSuZbzei4fenZ9cKVSUBT7IhuDtIcOH96t2073ft_XsILsHbFfk4Up2ZmZ0eNBQa1jlnOjASzA6jRZP62rpvSiU_Yp1ELIQJzy4uKXJ-exUtXzT7ImTQuZFWVRTM_BnSGKPnOiyauFpLZWh20xK8dM9z9Jd8SrlzgnCYQ

frommindtomatter said...

@John Mc Gowan

Good find John. I have transcribed the audio for those who are interested.

AB: Hi there, I`m supposed to call to make a report.

(Address and phone number requested and taken)

OP: What do you need to file a report for?

AB: Umm.., well last night I.. um.., somebody tried to set me on fire downtown. And so, um, I was at the ER all night, and they told me I needed to call today.

OP: OK, and where did that occur?

AB: Umm, I was, at a cross street on state street, and I was trying to get to university, but I`m having trouble remembering where it was.

OP: You don’t know where abouts on state street?

AB: I was just crossing State Street. I`m pretty sure it was by like Los (inaudible), which is, I drove…

OP: What’s that like?

AB: Umm, it’s a Mexican restaurant… called Los (name of restaurant I can’t make it out) its on like the corner of State street at a cross street. But umm….

OP: Los (I think her confirms restaurant name)

AB: Yeah,

OP: OK

AB: Otherwise I`m not really remembering cause it happened really fast.

OP: OK erm, so someone tried to start you on fire you said?

AB: Yeah, I was driving in my car to Middleton, and um, I heard like, a group of people yell the N word and I turned my head, and they threw lighter fluid at me, and then threw a… like match or lighter at me.

OP: You went to the hospital?

AB: Yeah I was at UW ER.

Operator basically says someone will get back to her in next couple of days.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

John - I was a bit distracted by the video host:

“I am Andrea, I am an anarchist communist anti-fascist anti-racist peace and love promoting white girl.”

Or, according to her website:

“Angry Trans”

Andrea’s angry defence of Althea Bernstein is based on her sounding “weak” in the call, which was made to the non-emergency police line the day following the alleged attack, but that’s no defence, more an emotional response.

——-

AB: Hi there. Um, I’m supposed to call to make a report.

She was reluctant to make the call - later in the call she says ER staff told her she needed to make a report.

“I was driving in my car to Middleton and I heard like a group of people yelling the N word and I turned my head and they threw lighter fluid at me and then threw like a match or lighter at me.”

The full version of her call is in a video lower down the page here - I can’t make a transcript as it keeps cutting out:

https://www.channel3000.com/it-happened-really-fast-audio-of-call-to-dispatch-details-womans-report-of-being-set-on-fire/

She is “very appreciative” of a detective possibly being in contact within a couple of days - wouldn’t such a victim consider the incident to be urgent?

The police have stated it is a priority case - maybe that’s more in the expectation of proving a false report than finding “like a group of people”?

It could be the officer was testing her reaction in saying they were busy with priority cases - if someone tried to set you on fire, you’d surely raise an objection and say it was a priority case - yet she didn’t call or ask anyone else to 911, or even contact police until the following day.I think it’s more false report to cover something else rather than fake hate due to her lack of SJW agenda in the news interview- also her slowness and reluctance to make the report - she doesn’t even say they were white men - rather “like a group of people”.

——

Why does she say “I was driving in my car” - why not just driving?

frommindtomatter said...

AB: Umm.., [well] last night I… um.., [somebody] [tried] to set me on fire downtown. And [so], um, I was at the ER all night, and they [told] me I needed to call today.

We look to see if her response will be fronted with the pronoun “I” to give psychological commitment to the words which follow. In context it is expected she will say “I was attacked” or “I was set on fire” and give information regarding who was responsible. We find instead she hesitates to answer and needs time to think signalled by the use of “umm, well”. She does move to the pronoun “I”, saying “well last night I”, but stops to think again and changes from “I” to the passive word “somebody”. She is lacking commitment to her statement.

“[somebody] [tried] to set me on fire”

“somebody” is passive, and we see that this somebody “tried” to set her on fire, with tried revealing a failed attempt. If somebody set fire to my coat for instance, and I put the flames out in 2 seconds (very short time), I would not say they “tried” to set me on fire. I would say “they set fire to me”.

Listening to the audio It sounds like she is a bit drugged, perhaps on pain medication. I don’t know if anyone else can hear that? If she is I would imagine that would have an impact on speed of transmission of her thoughts and words.

Adrian.

Habundia said...

This story does me thinking of the Casey Anthony case.

The boy's mother said she hasn't seen him in a month after he didn't return from a stay with another family member.

"another family member"........he stayed at his stepfather, who says he dropped the child at a babysitter, so who's the 'other family member'?
How long would the child stay with the stepfather?

"Hill said she became alarmed earlier this week when the stepfather texted to say he had dropped off King with a babysitter. Hill said she doesn't know the babysitter well.

The babysitter reportedly said she had dropped off King with her, but Hill never saw her son."

A month seems like a long time for a two year old to stay with a stepfather.
I do think there is a lot of information missing.
So when did the babysitter say she dropped the child off?
The stepfather dropped the child off at the babysitter, but there doesn't seem to be some kind of appointment on what will happen after the child is dropped off.
Would the babysitter bring the child? Would the mother get the child? What did the message the stepfather send precisely say?

John "As I said there is not enough to conclude eather way but I do believe there may have issues in the past concerning his welfare."

I got the same vibe from her words, she at the least is neglectful
For a mother to leave her 2 year old for a month to stay at his stepfathers home seems odd. 4 weeks is a long time for a 2 year old without his mom.


The 'set to fire-incident'
There wasn't much to transcribe from the news clip that was in the first link:

"I was driving in my car to Middleton and I heard like a group of people yelling the N-word and uhm I turned my head and they threw lighter fluid at me and then threw a (?) , a match or lighter at me."

She does add a word before the 'match or lighter' part, but I can't make out what she says.

So she has been set to fire yet I don't hear (see) any anger in her words? Wouldn't one be furious? I know I would. Sure pain medication could make you become slower in words and thoughts, but would it lessen the anger you would feel when someone did this to you?
How does she know they threw 'lighter fluid' at her? Did they say this in the hospital, how else would she know what kind of fluid was used to lit? There are more fluids that can lit when set to fire, she choose 'lighter fluid'
How fast was she driving for her to turn her head and them throwing lighter fluid and a match or lighter that it would lit while she is driving?
How did she ended up in the hospital? Did she drove herself? While on fire? How was the fire put out?
Why was she driving to university at night? Does she live there?
Was she late for some kind of night curve?
There are to many questions, her story doesn't sound right.

John Mc Gowan said...

King Hill’s Mother Pleads For 2-Year-Old’s Safe Return As Weeklong Search Continues

A note of caution. We dont know if she is replying to questions. "How are you coping" etc..

I can’t sleep because my son’sout there,” said Amber Hill, King’s mother. “Every day that goes past, it’s just horrible for me. I can’t be by myself.”

Investigators with the Special Victims Unit have interviewed everyone involved in the boy’s care, including a babysitter who claims she dropped the child off with his mother near 31st and Diamond Streets. King’s mother says that handoff never happened.

The babysitter, she’s lying ,on her end, completely. I just know she is,” Hill said. “You never dropped my son off, you never did none of that. You’re lying, you’re a liar.”

Hill said her son was supposed to be in the care of his stepfather. The stepfather called police last Tuesday when he realized neither the babysitter nor the mother had King.

“The stepfather reached out to her and asked how the child was doing. He was going to drop something off at the house,” said Capt. Mark Burgmann, commanding officer of SUV. “That’s what alerted to her, he’s not here, and that’s when it all came to light.”

Monday night, community members searched a trail near 33rd and Diamond Streets in Fairmount Park, an effort which was fruitless.

“I am enraged that the community isn’t enraged that a 2-year-old has been missing since Tuesday,” said Rick Ford, the search organizer. “We’re going to keep doing this until we get some answers.”

Hill tearfully pleaded for her son’s safe return.

“Everyone is just messed up right now but we’re not going to stop looking for him. I’m not going to stop looking for him,” she said.

Capt. Burgmann called the case a “top priority.” Anyone with information is asked to contact the Special Victims Unit at (215) 685-3251/(215) 685-3264 or tips@phillypolice.com

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/07/14/king-hills-mother-pleads-for-2-year-olds-safe-return-as-weeklong-search-continues/?fbclid=IwAR1tlp9qG_v8s707BhL-qZyI5ulTtsYn8_E1sZhtztSS05gzjWkYcrxAU9U

Hey Jude said...

No concern expressed for the child by the mother - it’s only about her, and she can’t be on her own. Who was with her, then, when King was away for weeks or months with his stepfather? Maybe other children have been removed from her since King’s disappearance came to light. She can’t mean that she can’t be without him, as she gave him over to the stepfather for extended periods.

“The babysitter, she’s lying, on her end, completely. I just know she is,”

This is so strange - why add, “I just know she is.” ? Did she maybe send someone to pick up her son at the meeting place rather than go herself, and did that person not bring her son home? Why otherwise say more than “She’s lying.” . I’m not sure she was at any meeting place to meet her son. It’s as if she’s trying to convince herself tha babysitter is lying - but if there was no meeting, no drop off arranged, why the need to say more than “she’s lying” - she would know rather than “just know”?

How great that everyone being messed up is not going to stop them looking, though - what brave troopers they are - already out looking all around their picnic table.

Poor baby, it’s not looking good. Did someone sell him or, more hopefully, give him to someone who wanted him?

Sharon said...


“I can’t sleep because my son’s out there,” said Amber Hill, King’s mother. “Every day that goes past, it’s just horrible for me. I can’t be by myself.”

I am not seeing the normal language of a concerned parent. The focus is on her. She is concerned about the consequences of her son's disappearance to herself. She can't sleep, it's just horrible for her, she can't be by herself. Not a word about whether the little boy is able to sleep at night, is he frightened, is he alone.

John Mc Gowan said...

@ Hey Jude, Sharon

Concern for him should be priority i agree. As I said though, she maybe responding to a question, "how are you coping" etc. Her language then would be an appropriate responce.

Context is paramount. She takes ownership (my) which is good. An unedited interview allowing her to use her own language, choose her own words without contamination, without leading questions and or loaded ones, may reveal more.

frommindtomatter said...

The babysitter, she’s lying, [on her end, completely]. I just know she is,” Hill said. “You never dropped my son off, you never did none of that. You’re lying, you’re a liar.

Strong statements don’t need qualifying. The speaker makes the initial strong statement, “The babysitter, she’s lying”, but doesn’t stop there. She qualifies her statement by saying “on her end, completely”. These extra words alter the meaning of her statement, and extra words yield extra information.

“on her end, completely”

By saying “on her end”, she allows for there to be two ends. One is the babysitters and the other hers. By saying “completely” she shows she is thinking of different levels of lies. There are lies, and there are complete lies in her perception. The babysitter’s lies are complete according to the speaker. We must consider that because she spoke of “two ends” in connection with lying, that she herself is comparing her own lies against the babysitters. She didn’t need to include the extra information, and her initial statement would have been strong without it. By including it, it has weakened her words.

At the beginning she introduces the babysitter (“The babysitter”), and then refers to her as “she”, which is appropriate as she is talking to the reporter. When talking of King being dropped off she moves off the pronoun “she” and changes to “you”. The strongest statement available to her would be “she didn’t drop King off with me”. By changing pronoun to “you” it appears she is addressing the babysitter, but the babysitter is not there. When talking with the reporter using “she” as before would be the most appropriate.

“[You] [never] dropped my son off, [you] [never] did [none] of [that]. [You’re] lying, [you’re] a liar.”

This allows her to avoid making the statement ““she didn’t drop King off with me”. We know “never” cannot be accepted as a reliable denial, and it`s repeated twice making it sensitive.

“you never did [none of] that.”

Again there are extra unnecessary words (“none of”), stretching out further what was "never" done. Most economical is, “you never did that”.

Edited clips from the interview make things difficult, but there is a lot of content in what she says. I am interested to see how this case develops.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

John, thank you for the reminder - true, we don’t know what else she might have said. I assume not much, as this is all that was given by way of the mother’s apparent plea for his safe return:


‘Hill tearfully pleaded for her son’s safe return.

“Everyone is just messed up right now but we’re not going to stop looking for him. I’m not going to stop looking for him,” she said’

Heartless as the media can be, I think they would not have edited out any heart wrenching concern for him, or plea for King’s safe return had the mother made one, as it would be such a gross misrepresentation. Could it be that the above is the response she made when given the opportunity to ask for his return/address whoever has him?

That she is not going to stop looking for him, and the community is out searching the area, suggests there is a belief he could be found wandering alone, or dead in a ditch, rather than with anyone? It’s more than a week, yet he could not fend for himself for even a day at two years old. I wonder, are the police also searching, or do they have other information?

It’s Interesting the community leader says he is outraged that there is not outrage in the community - is that a community which is sadly not surprised, or is he maybe referring to the mother and any other family who live locally? It’s hard to believe that really, no-one is outraged - he must be outraged though, at what he sees as someone’s lack of outrage. . Realistically, there should and would be outrage in any community at a two year old unaccounted for, so his perception that there is not, is interesting.

Hey Jude said...

Adrian - thanks for your great elucidation in this, and so often - I find your posts and analyses very helpful.

frommindtomatter said...

@ Hey Jude

You’re welcome. I enjoy coming here; it’s an amazing resource for SA. Many thanks to Peter for creating this environment, and sharing his wealth of knowledge with us.

Adrian

frommindtomatter said...

Here is a quote from Philadelphia Police Capt. Mark Burgmann regarding the King Hill case.

"Somebody is not telling us the truth. Yes. That's correct," Philadelphia Police Capt. Mark Burgmann said.

"Because the babysitter is saying she returned the child to the mother and mother is saying, 'No. She did not.'

In many cases the police, after weighing the available evidence and conducting interviews will have an inclination on who is likely the guilty party. This will influence their language just as it would any other persons, as their words will be based on their knowledge/beliefs. Looking at the above quote it would be fair to say that Burgmann when structuring his sentence had a free choice in terms of the words he chose and the order he placed them in when conveying his message. What interests me here the most is the order he has chosen. If the babysitter was interviewed first and the mother second then one possibility for the structuring would be based on that, and it could be deemed the order is progressive. This would be like the parent naming their children based on the order of birth.

Another possibility could be that through his knowledge of the case he has automatically structured his statement based on what he believed at the point in time the statement was made. He can order his statement two ways:

"Because the babysitter is saying she returned the child to the mother and mother is saying, 'No. She did not.'"

Or

"Because the mother is saying the babysitter didn’t return the child to her and the babysitter is saying she did.

We will never know what caused Burgmann to structure his statement the way he did, but from a SA standpoint it is something interesting to ponder. His order could follow some progressive logical pattern or it could be based on his beliefs.

All media attention in the case is on the mother which is expected, but it is also expected we would hear from the step father and babysitter. One would think the babysitter especially would relish an opportunity to call out the mother regarding her statements accusing her of being a liar. Hopefully more statements will become available soon.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

OT: King Hill
Transcript of a video posted by babysitter

Babysitter: Hey, everybody. Um, I hope everybody’s having a great day today - um, I had a very long night, um. Today - my bad - I particularly want to talk about what’s been going on right now, what I’ve been posting, so - there’s this very, very, very handsome little boy, named King, who is missing. Um, I don’t know if people are following the story, seen the news, or anything - or any thing like that, but um, I - we been looking for him. Um, I received a call that he was missing like yesterday, and um, we’ve been at the police district all night - long. So, since this on the news I’m gonna talk about it because I have something to say. Um. The mother of this boy, whoever she is, um, if you go on the news you can look at it yourself, I’m not going to say her name, but the mother - I just wanna let everybody know - she’s a liar. That girl is, um, she has issues - for real. I was sitting next to her all night, all night yesterday, to like three o clock in the morning, cos that’s how long they had us out there for - cos they wouldn’t let us leave because King is missing. And, um, yes, so, I just want to know why - why today or whenever she was on the news - her reaction is totally different than it was last night. Last night I was actually shocked that a mother who just lost her son was not - wasn’t crying, didn’t have no type of reaction, no emotions, like when she walked up to the scene she gave everybody the grizzly just like looking mad as shit, like very revengeful, but she wasn’t like - she wasn’t crying. So it was very concerning to me that a mother who just lost their child, who had to get called down to the police- or um - the police district, the station, who didn’t even put in a complaint that her son was missing, is down here, and she’s not crying, she’s not upset - she’s- she’s chilling, legit chilling, straight faced and everything.

So - fast forward to later on - later on that night when she came back outside after getting released I just heard the conversations that she’s having on the phone - still not crying, which is still mind boggling me that your son is missing, but you’re not - you’re chilling, you’re busting it up on the phone, you’re fine - and - you just all of a sudden go on the news and you’re crying uncontrollably- shit that I was sup - that I was expecting yesterday when you found out your son was missing, but now today it’s a whole nother story - so, I’m not going to get into details with anything else, I just want everybody to - send your prayers up, please, because they really need - because a little boy is really missing, and even if he get found today, please send your prayers because his mother is not right, his mother never been right, and pray for my family please, because if things escalate then it will be more to the story, so I’ma just need everybody to just pray - pray hard - pray for this little boy, pray that he get found, pray that he is safe, pray that he is eating and sleeping and that he’s comfortable, pray that he’s with somebody that he knows because she don’t want him - she-she said that last night - like she don’t want him - she never cared about him - so please send your prayers because this little boy is missing right now and everybody wanna - wanna find him. He is very significant to my family - that he is found right now and we need to find him. So, thank you for watching - please share, go watch the news - if you know the girl - if you didn’t see the boy look on my page - he is on there, and if you spot him please call 911, please let them know where you seen him, what he had on, please pay attention to all your surroundings, what car he got in,if you could get the license plates, take a picture of it - um - anything that you could do, please help.

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-6C5DJKLI

Hey Jude said...

I enjoy it, too, Adrian, though enjoy doesn’t always seem the right word. :)

The babysitter wants a lot of prayer, but she doesn’t say she gave King to his mother. I wonder if asking for prayers is the same as calling upon Divine Witness?

Hey Jude said...

That may not be the babysitter - it was presented as so, but she doesn’t identify herself as such. Bit of a caveat. :-/. Apologies - so it’s a transcript of a video made by someone who spent the night at the police station in relation to King’s disappearance, and who may or may not be the babysitter, and who has nothing good to say about the mother.

John Mc Gowan said...

Update:

A tragic update 💔 King Hill’s mother said that detectives and a representative from the district attorney’s office visited her home Sunday to share the devastating news that her son was killed. The announcement comes after a nearly two-week search for the missing toddler.

Police have not yet identified the person at the center of the investigation, but the boy’s grandmother says the suspect is a female acquaintance of the boy’s stepfather.

Link to original post: https://www.facebook.com/1525175764455263/posts/2345260799113418/

#RIP #KingHill #Philadelphia

John Mc Gowan said...

Babysitter charged with murder in death of 2-year-old King Hill, Philadelphia police say

PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia police say a babysitter has been charged with murder in the death of a toddler who had been missing for nearly two weeks.

The babysitter is in custody, police say, but that person's name has not been released.

This update came hours after family members told Action News 2-year-old King Hill was dead.

They said police came to their Strawberry Mansion home on Sunday to break the news, and to tell them an arrest has been made in his murder.

Police said Monday they have not been able to locate King's body.

Kimberly Hill, King's maternal grandmother, tells Action News now they just want King home so they can bury him.

"Wherever he is at, whatever happened to him, just bring him back so we can put King to rest," said Hill. "He was amazing, everybody loved King."

King's stepfather told police a babysitter dropped King off to King's mother at 33rd and Diamond streets back on July 7.

However, King's mother said that never happened and she thought King was still in the stepfather's care.

When the stepfather realized King was missing, he called the police.

https://abc7ny.com/police-babysitter-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-2-year-old/6324984/

John Mc Gowan said...

There was nothing in his Moms language indicating involvement when statements, all be them heavily edited, were released. The plot may thicken, however.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

3 DAYS AFTER SEARCH CALLED OFF, 2-YEAR-OLD MADERA BOY THADDEUS SRAN STILL MISSING

A neighbor says he saw the lights turned on in Thaddeus Sran's home two or three times at night.

MADERA, Calif. (KFSN) -- Fliers of a missing child are posted throughout a Madera neighborhood near 13 and C streets.

The boy pictured is 2-year-old Thaddeus Sran who was reported missing last Wednesday.

Since his disappearance, several law enforcement agencies and community members have searched every inch of the neighborhood.

But the search of that area came to a close Friday leaving residents with more questions than answers.

"I don't think they found anything because up until today, they stopped searching for him here," said Ermelanto Espinoza, who lives next door to the home where Thaddeus was reported missing.

Espinoza told Action News in Spanish the family moved in about two weeks ago.

He said he never heard or saw the little boy or his mother and only met her after the disappearance.

"It's all strange," he said "I don't think the boy was ever here. I think the alleged abduction was elsewhere because I never saw anything."

According to investigators, the toddler's parents explained they went to bed around 10 at night and when they awoke at 8 in the morning he was gone.

Espinoza, who gets up for work at three in the morning, says he didn't hear anything overnight and adds someone must have been awake in the home around the same time.

"When I was going to work, the lights inside were turned on two or three times," he said "Maybe he was sleeping, but someone was up."

The Sran family is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to Thaddeus.

Madera Police were not available for comment on Monday, but said over the phone they have received community tips, but some of them haven't turned out to be much.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Madera Police Department.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/abc30.com/amp/thaddeus-sran-madera-boy-still-missing-2-year-old-child/6326371/

Hey Jude said...

Very sad news, John.

The may or may not be babysitter’s concern is that everyone should think particularly badly of the mother - anyone might think she had a need to persuade.

John Mc Gowan said...

Indeed, Hey Jude.

OT Thaddeus Sran:

Tweet
Dennis Valera
@dennisreports
·
2h
Madera Police just sent out a press release, assuring the public they won’t stop looking for #missingchild Thaddeus Sran.

They add his parents have stopped cooperating with the investigation.

I can't find any statements from his parents.

Hey Jude said...


The babysitter who has been charged with King’s murder is not the same person in the transcript who made the video about King’s mother and their night in the police station. I don’t know why she was described as and believed to be the relevant babysitter - her family has had care of King.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/21/babysitter-charged-in-death-of-missing-philadelphia-toddler/

Hey Jude said...

Thaddeus is non-verbal, he doesn’t yet walk, and he needs a feeding tube - the hurricane fence and gate surrounding the house were secure.

The police said they are looking at the possibility of his climbing out of a window. Or abduction, though there is no Amber Alert. It sounds as though they are having to bide their time until they find out what happened as it doesn’t sound likely that he could have climbed out of a window or was abducted.

——

Re King - I know why I described and initially believed her to be the babysitter - I took it on good faith from the video creator who included her video in her own video about King’s disappearance. . I mean I don’t know why she believed it, but I think most likely because she lives in the area and had followed the conversations on Facebook. Maybe the transcript girl was one of several babysitters - that seems the most likely reason she would be identified as such, also as she was at the police station all night - though the transcript girl, in another video, says she didn’t say or state that she was the babysitter. Not the same as saying straightforwardly she wasn’t his babysitter - so it’s quite likely she babysat King at some point, especially given her family had care of him sometimes.

John Mc Gowan said...

MISSING CHILDREN
Parents of missing 2-year-old boy have 'stopped cooperating,' Madera police say

The Madera community came together on Tuesday night for a vigil.

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- Five days after two-year-old Thaddeus Sran disappeared from his Madera home, the Madera Police Department said in a press release that his parents have "stopped cooperating" with the investigation.

However, officials said officers would not stop looking for the missing toddler.

"Early on in the case, the parents stopped cooperating... We're hopeful that they will resume cooperating and come back in and speak with our detectives," Madera Police Lt. Josiah Arnold told Action News.

Lt. Arnold confirmed Thaddeus' parents had another daughter who died in Madera a few years ago but didn't give any more details.

Detectives from several law enforcement agencies, and community members, searched every inch of Thaddeus's neighborhood through Friday.

Officers are now searching spots outside the city.

Arnold thanked the Madera community for helping in the search for Thaddeus, adding, "The most important thing the public can do to help, at this point, is to think about the night of the 14th, and the morning of the 15th. And if they remember anything at all that's suspicious or in any way relates to this case, to call us."

The Sran family has set up a $5,000 reward for information leading to Thaddeus.

On Tuesday evening, dozens who've been helping search for Thaddeus came together for a vigil at Courthouse Park in Madera.

Organizer Victoria Castaneda said she is still shocked by the disappearance and said she's helped in the search while posting his picture and a plea to return him.

Sunndeep Sran said she's related to the family, and drove into town to help with the search.

"They're private, I don't know why they're not speaking out," she said.

She said she's never met the two-year-old and has yet to speak with the toddler's parents.

https://abc30.com/parents-of-missing-2-year-old-boy-have-stopped-cooperating-madera-police-say/6327655/?fbclid=IwAR0GYm87V9It_tEL-Ix0Ry3zJNb9hbYa6FB3x8ezK8Sk7DrfUU48PMZmK9o

frommindtomatter said...

Thats sad news about King Hill. He was badly let down.

Adrian.

Habundia said...

"his parents have "stopped cooperating" with the investigation."

So the stepfather stopped also? Or isn't he considered "a parent"?
What about the boy's biological father?

All these people saying they are related to the family or know the family yet nobody ever saw the boy?

Didn't she had to go shopping? Did she leave the boy at home if she did? Did she get welfare or how did she get money to live from?
Somebody have to have known the child other then the stepfather and his mom?

These cases make me feel so sad.

Namaste said...

So my Wiccan friends say “Holy Mother Moon” and have sometimes said “I swear to the holy mother moon” (this was on summer solstice celebration bringing forth the Divine Feminine celebration), but she was lying, I think, about her boyfriend and how much she wants to marry him..

Hey Jude said...

The Madera Police Department said human remains of a child between the ages of 2 and 3 were found around 9:15 a.m. by cadaver dogs. Officials said they could not confirm the remains are those of Thaddeus Sran, pending testing results.

"It's a very strong possibility that it is little Thaddeus," Police Chief Dino Lawson told reporters during a news briefing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/missing-california-toddler-thaddeus-sran-s-remains-may-have-been-found-police-work-to-confirm-id/ar-BB177k54

John Mc Gowan said...

MADERA, California (KGPE) — A disturbing development in the search for 2-year-old Thaddeus Sran, police say they’ve found the body of a toddler in an area west of Madera.

Moments before that announcement, the attorney representing Sran’s parents issued his first statement on their behalf. In it, he maintains the parents have been fullycooperative with this investigation and they just want their son home.

Full statement below.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/attorney-for-thaddeus-srans-parents-issues-first-statement-as-madera-police-announce-a-dead-child-has-been-found/amp/

Hey Jude said...

‘Co-operating’ is a strange word in the context of a missing child - it seems often used where the child is found to be deceased. We know the parents stopped co-operating days ago, according to the police statement. The content is not available in Europe at that link - I’ll look for an alternative.

——

Found this - his parents have been arrested and charged in the murder of Thaddeus:

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/parents-charged-in-alleged-murder-of-missing-2-year-old-boy-childs-body-possibly-located/

Hey Jude said...

I was able to read the first page of the letter from the attorney, I think on a Fox News site as a scibd screenshot, wherein he claimed that the police statement about their non-cooperation was causing further distress to them while they were already distressed about what might have happened to their little boy - it must be an awful job, representing such people.

At least Thaddeus’ remains have been soon found, and hopefully what caused his death, and why he is not identifiable pre-autopsy will be established. Maybe they will take another look at the earlier death of another of their medically fragile children, a baby girl, just in case hers wasn’t a cot death.

Some type of ‘justice’, at least for Thaddeus’ siblings - they still have to live with it.

Five years this month - July 10th - was when little DeOrr Kunz went missing; the Sheriff (deputy at the time) is still looking for him up at the campsite in Leadore, but DeOrr’s parents have moved on with their lives.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Hey Jude
It is somewhat disturbing and concerning that their disabled son was found dead and that they had stopped cooperating several days back and it is revealed that another daughter who was also medically fragile was also found dead.
Way too much of a coincidence.
They had time, the means and the motives for the deaths of their children.
When parents stop cooperating when their child goes missing, it is never a good sign and invariably means they are involved in some way.
I hope they do look at the death of their daughter, I would not be surprised if it was deliberate.

At least Thaddeus has been found and can be given a dignified funeral.

John Mc Gowan said...

He was found in a fire pit.!

John Mc Gowan said...

Hannah Potts made a Facebook live video saying she was being kidnapped – she is still missing

Lauren Potts made a plea on Facebook around 22 hours ago at the time of this post.



Hannah is still missing. This is a weird case. We have not been able to find the video yet.

WHAT WE KNOW SO FAR:

– Hannah apparently made the video at around 7am on July 24.

Her phone died or was turned off shortly after.

– Her family and friends are conducting searches.
The Gibson County Sheriff Department have finally gotten involved.

Just before 6pm on July 25, it was announced that the FBI are now involved:

Hannah’s sister has released some more information: (in link provided)

We were sent a recording of the video – you can listen here as it seems to be audio only.

Kelly put together a transcript of the audio:

“Mom are you there? Hello? Mom if you can hear me please say something. I really need to hear your voice. Somethings happened. I was out taking those pictures of the animals and this guy came out of nowhere. it was the same guy I saw yesterday morning in the maroon car. He grabbed me, he pushed me into the trunk. Oh god. Where is he gonna take me? Mom please. Think Hannah, think. He um… He’s black, he’s about um, Jerry’s height, Jerry I work with. He’s, he’s.. He um… his voice is deep and kind of the way he called me ‘baby girl’ sent shivers down my spine, I don’t like it. Please mom, if you’re there can you please say something to me? I’m in a room… there’s a little light, four room, four walls… and uh I don’t think they know I have the phone so you gotta tell, you gotta tell the cops everything that, you gotta show them this video so maybe they can find me and um I don’t know where he uh, where did he say, he said something about Ohio. God mom, I love you. Tell dad I love him too. Take care of Gigi for me. Please if I don’t make it back, I love you. I love you so much. I don’t know, I don’t know (inaudible) if I don’t make it home, will you ask Robin to take… care of Ringo for me. Um, did you, tell robin to take care of Marvin too. Tell Gina I said thank you for everything she’s done for me at work. You have every right to feel the way you need to about your kids.”

This is a strange case. Why the lack of media about it? Could this be a mental break? Was she really kidnapped? This is breaking news and the blog will be updated when info comes to hand.

Join our Facebook group in the meantime – Facebook.com/groups/truecrimesociety

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/truecrimesociety.com/2020/07/25/hannah-potts-made-a-facebook-live-video-saying-she-was-being-kidnapped-she-is-still-missing/amp/

John Mc Gowan said...

^^^^ who's "They"?

frommindtomatter said...

I just listened to the audio along with the transcript and have made some corrections and additions to the transcript.

“Mom are you there? Hello? Mom if you can hear me please say something. I really need to hear your voice. Something’s happened. I was out, I was out taking those pictures of the animals…… and this… and… this, this guy came out of nowhere. This is the same guy I saw yesterday morning in, in the maroon car. He, he, he grabbed me, and he pushed me into the trunk. Oh god. Where is he gonna take me? Mom please. OK think, think Hannah, think. He um… He’s black, he’s about um, Jerry’s height, Jerry I wor,work with. He’s, he’s.. He um… his, his voice is deep and…… kind of the way he called me ‘baby girl’ sent shivers down my spine. I don’t like it. Please mom, if you’re there can you please just say something to me? I’m in a room… there’s a little light, four room, four walls… and uh…… I don’t think they know I have the phone, so you gotta tell, you gotta tell the cops everything that, you gotta show them this video so maybe they can find me and um…… I don’t know where he uh, where did he say, what did he say, he said something about Ohio. God mom, I love you. Tell dad I love him too. Take care of Gigi for me. Please if I don’t make it back, I love you. I love you so much. I don’t know, I don’t know (inaudible) if I don’t make it home, will you ask Robin to take… care of Ringo for me. Um, did you, tell robin to take care of Marvin too. Tell Gina I said thank you for everything she’s done for me at work. You have every right to feel the way you need to about your kids.”

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

She has a phone and opportunity to use it, yet she failed to call the Police. If she was in a perceived life or death situation we expect her to call 911, but instead she has chosen to put a video up on FB.

“Something’s happened. I was out, I was out taking those pictures of the animals…… and this… and… this, this guy came out of nowhere. This is the same guy I saw yesterday morning in, in the maroon car. He, he, he grabbed me, and he pushed me into the trunk.”

“[Something’s] happened” – This is passive language; she doesn’t say, “a man has kidnapped me”, or something similar. This tells us in her perception of reality she hasn’t been kidnapped or abducted or she would have told us that.

“[I was out,] [I was out] taking those pictures of the animals”

This is like a “hina clause” where the subject feels the need to explain her actions. Here she wants her mother to know why she was out. The fact the words “I was out” are repeated x2 shows there is sensitivity around them. Also look to the priority the subject has in regards to the information she has given.

First she says, “something’s happened” (passive), next she wants to explain “why” she was out. Note she hasn’t asked her mother for help yet, it is not priority in her mind.

“and this… and… this, this guy came out of nowhere.”

She has transmission problems relaying this information; it takes a lot of effort to say “this guy”. “This”, brings the guy psychologically close to her, and the word “guy” can be considered a friendly term. Expected would “a man”. Does she know him?

“this guy came out of [nowhere]”

Here she tells us that the guy came out of “nowhere”. Things always come from somewhere, even if it is simply “from behind” or “across the field” etc…

“This is the same guy I saw yesterday morning in, in the maroon car”
She does know him. She also mentions “the maroon car”. Here she has inadvertently given detail of the car to her mother.

My question is did she arrange to meet this “guy”. Going for a walk at 2am is a little strange. Her priority is not to call the Police, but to post/call mother on FB. She initially does not ask for help so we must conclude this is not her priority. She doesnt say she has been kidnapped. I haven’t had chance to look at the full statement in detail yet to see if she actually does ask for help.

Adrian.

Tania Cadogan said...

If she had a phone why did she not call 911?

Hey Jude said...

Hi, Tania - it’s too awful for words, and the mother is eight months pregnant. All too much, maybe - they already had four children. Poor baby, maybe no wider family to help - a family member who went to the home while Thaddeus was missing had never met him. The other baby who died was much younger, within SIDS age range, but it has to be reconsidered in view of her also being “medically fragile”.

John - that’s why the body was unidentifiable, then. Was he burned to destroy evidence - or was that a preferred cultural means, rather than burial of a body? It seems particularly horrendous to put him in a fire pit, but maybe that seemed least horrendous, culture wise. I don’t know, but the father’s name is Indian, and depending on religion, likely Sikh, cremation would most likely be the ‘norm’ . Attitudes towards children without normal development can be less than enlightened in that culture, too, but I can’t assume any of that. Thaddeus is a Bible name, and the mother’s forename is not Indian - the mother, or both parents, if the father converted, might be Christian.

Well, it would be better to be able to think the baby wasn’t callously tossed in a fire pit and burned like rubbish after whatever horror led to his untimely death, but that’s the way it looks - it will be interesting to hear how they explain it, if they do.

Hey Jude said...

News - Hannah is alive and safe. Her parents on Facebook said she wants no contact with family, has been planning this for a while. apologie for their daughter’s behaviour, and they hope no black man with a maroon car has been targeted due to her lie. Posted about an hour ago.

Hey Jude said...

So, is it that Hannah ran away and wanted her family to believe she was trafficked?

John Mc Gowan said...

Always follow the pronouns. I'm glad shes ok, physically anyway, psychologically she may need help.

Mike Dammann said...

G-d knows what this is about...

Hey Jude said...

I think It’s about what is in the second part of the transcript, which is on the True Crime Society link, but which hasn’t been posted here.

Is there a reason it wasn’t included?

Sounds like a particularly dysfunctional family - and a very strange way for Hannah to extricate herself from it -she’s twenty three. They are hoping Hannah gets the help she needs. The brother wants Hannah’s audio call removed from the inter webs. I’d be more concerned about why my sister/daughter felt the need to fake a kidnapping and make a whistleblowing type call about the family via FB, and now not want any further contact with them.

John Mc Gowan said...

Boyfriend of missing Cape Coral woman speaks

It has been three weeks since Lauren Dumolo was last seen. Her boyfriend, Gabriel Pena, spoke to WINK News about what he thinks happened to his girlfriend.

“I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,” Pena said.

Pena recently was brought in by Cape Coral Police Department to take a polygraph test, and he claims that he passed. Police will not confirm this test result nor will they say if Pena is a suspect in Dumolo’s disappearance.

Pena, on the other hand simply misses his girlfriend and wants her to come home.
“I’m worried. I’m worried and scared. Not scared because I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen.”

This whole paragraph is loaded for analysis.

He says he last saw Lauren that Friday morning when he left for work. When he got home that evening, she was gone. He does have a theory about where she could’ve gone. “So my thing is that she went out with one of her friends. Her friend got her all messed up on drugs, and I don’t know what after that,” Pena said.

The police have deemed Dumolo’s disappearance suspicious. So far, Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers has received a few tips but no substantial leads.

“At this point, everything attached to Lauren has been flagged, so, if she went and used her credit card or debit card somewhere, we would know that,” said Trish Routte with Crime Stoppers. “So, with every hour that passes every day that passes, it becomes a little more desperate to find out where she is.”

Lauren’s father Paul Dumolo thinks his daughter is still alive but fears that she’ll become another cold case. “The wondering part is probably the worst, you know. Even if the answer is bad at least, you have closure,” he said.

Paul does also recognize that there’s a possibility she could be gone forever but doesn’t want to let his mind go there.

https://www.winknews.com/2020/07/10/boyfriend-of-missing-cape-coral-mother-speaks/?__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=7c05ab7841fc078e2eb34b6cfa1e9f2622594830-1595945521-0-AXMeNMA3dybFSFH2iz2wS3lzIh8FENZHacZxPVijb8hfFkS8rnCbQ8QQ0vxZAsORAo723Pg208ZHVUkeuWShBuRt-QAJrjp7ajYcIzRF_kI-jg0TmhYsB6CzAAWZc9aAqRGJyPY0b2yXOR04hPw7d3XG6LOamWkluw8PWDZSBl_EULNWj5K-6VGkMzddfEmCkRYhVVQVpADjbcRxxLJ_jMjmdOn6Ke4yDOHYTgCug0UJJus8WxGWO4QhlHrNAJ9xXDAANs4P_N6Ze5vIC_a35NTEwrL_nxf4wU9tEhbWojd6tE9b6oCYnUqI5R4uWNIaysC_IOEyMbEnlZO2DsC8fOFhrjr_nF5yYSUUwaFvBK-J4Odv8YrSL_OC2xHiE1r0E3rPSkwOA5xmACLX_bljcuRyGxOPFHY7XiuP4kiiFs4eeYKHitFxbHwCCsWbuAhRH0NJYDtzPaBsVs2zrAk2CLFsK73hKMqvW1q59XDRZjxgZBJvJ49z0W_5MAODDG8_vb6qpM9dhwNHioFyRte9DtjMGu8epijj4OOJxfSi4vzrcQNegqp-zFmpimraQ3ElNQ#

John Mc Gowan said...

Oops. I just realised I post this^ up thread. I apologise.

Hey Jude said...

John - that URL is too long to grab - tinyurl.com - allows you to shorten them:

https://tinyurl.com/yxjmz6pm

“I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,” Pena said.

Is he responding to a question, such as: “Do you think Lauren left of her own accord?”
If so, it would seem reasonable to doubt a woman would leave for three weeks without those items. It wouldn’t be a strong answer, however, as he could, if he believed she had not left on her own accord, reply, “No - she was abducted.” or, “someone must have taken her.”

If it’s not in response to a question, I would question why he is using “left”, which is a voluntary sounding action, whilst implying she was abducted.

Is toothbrush similar to teeth brushing, as a possible allusion to DV? Does he maybe mention those things because he has been questioned, then or previously, as to whether Lauren took clothes, toothbrush, make up?

“I’m worried. I’m worried and scared. Not scared because I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen.”

He is very worried, as he repeats it, and at least equally as scared. In the jumble of negatives he may be twice affirming “something really did happen”. It’s an interesting sentence - why is he not scared? “Not scared because I didn’t do anything...”. First he said he was scared. Then he was not scared because he didn’t do anything. Did the reporter suggest that he had done something - or is he defending himself against an accusation she did not make? He doesn’t say why he IS scared, rather he goes on to be “just worried” - which is to minimise that “something really did happen.”

He doesn’t say he’s worried about and scared for Lauren, who has been missing for weeks. He’s not worried in case something happened, or that something might have happened - he’s worried “something really did happen.”

“So my thing is that she went out with one of her friends. Her friend got her all messed up on drugs, and I don’t know what after that,”

Now, he’s saying “she went out” with one of her friends - but he also said she would not have left on her own without taking extra clothes, toothbrush and make up, at least. If she was just going out with a friend she wouldn’t need to pack a suitcase.

“I don’t know what after that” - is similar to “and that’s all” - he is not willing to speak further. He was, apparently, in work when Lauren went missing, yet claims to know what happened. “Her friend got her all messed up on drugs.” It’s short and factual, and he doesn’t know what after that. He knows before that? Is he the friend?

There’s not a lot, we don’t know how any questions were worded, or what more he might have said which wasn’t included - as it was a phone conversation with a reporter, it’s not spoken in the free editing process. I listened to the audio, and he sounds pretty messed up. There is deception - he iimplies Lauren didn’t leave of her own accord, but also that she just “went out” with a friend - he’s telling two stories.

There is very little by way of media coverage on Lauren’s disappearance.

John Mc Gowan said...

@ Hey Jude

Hi, thanks for the ULR.

Something is off in his statement. I can't access the recording. As you say, is he responding to a question. Is it edited ( the recording) I can't tell due to no access.
He speaks alot in the negative. Subtle demeaning.
Possible DV. Of all the items he could've mentioned, he chose, "Toothbrush.

"I’m worried. I’m worried and scared"
I believe him. "Worried and scared" for himself and or her?

"I didn’t do anything"

If he wasnt asked, did you..? Then this concerns me.

"But I’m just worried something really did happen.” Going on to give a reason (Hina Clause)

Was it him whom mentioned "drugs" or the interviewer?
Drugs is passive. I would've asked him his definition of "drugs" the interviewer missed a trick there.

I wish I could annalise some more but I dont have a Laptop at the moment and it takes yonks on my phone. Lol

John Mc Gowan said...

"Toothbrush"

Does she have dental issues? Teeth falling out? Or leakage, DV?

Habundia said...

"The content is not available in Europe at that link - I’ll look for an alternative."

As a European my self I use Proxysite.com.......most sites that can't be seen because of government restrictions can be read with this site (I hate governments who tell me what I can or can't read! I think I am old enough to make that decision on my own)

Habundia said...

"I am adviced by the Srans that thereafter, no further effort was made by members of law enforcement to personally speak with them further."

What about themselves? Did they made any effort to speak personally with law enforcement (even if it is with the presence of their attorney), parents who really are worried about their missing child, will call or visit law enforcement multiple times a day if they think it is needed or if they think LE isn't doing enough to find their child......they won't wait until law enforcement will ring their doorbell to ask questions.

Habundia said...

So I have been creating some transcripts about a case that has been on my priority list for the past 4 years. Many probably have heard about the case, but I would like to see what these statements tell by the use of Statement Analysis.

Brother of missing sister speaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81HIfBegkfw

“Poster, uhm my sister uhm she’s been missing. My hope is I get someone a poster and they say: You know I saw her at this time on Monday, yeah I saw her on Tuesday, you know, and I was come across I though, I think I saw her Wednesday, you know and I’ll say brings…..bring us up today or someone saw her.”
“Because we have to represent Teresa uhm we have to make sure that justice is served.
“If he feels that he is incompetent to be relieved he has himself to blame.”
“Maybe it gives him a better change on posting bail. Uh uhm all over, until that day comes, if it ever comes uh I am not gonna worry about it. We’re all doing pretty well uhm we’re taking everything day to day uhm. I’ts obviously very difficult still uhm, there’s still days we sit home and think wow can’t believe this is happening, can’t believe we’re part of this uhm, it’s still uhm completely unreal.”
“Every, every, everything I hear about is my sister knowing that uhm people can do this to other human beings. Everything I hear is surreal I don’t believe it but uhm but I have to believe it, and I have to accept it. For this… young person to come forward with her two furnished information of investigators, took…took some courage but I, I wished they would have used that courage on Halloween and uhm my sister might still be here. It hurt uhm, uhm my mom started crying, you know she says sh she she knows you know, my sister, her daughter is no longer here but just to hear someone say that every, every time someone says that it hurts her deep inside. I am not gonna ? some time on you, it isn’t gonna, it wasn’t getting away with this uhm but the more uhm the more evidence comes fort uhm definitely helps our case and well we’ll make through that uh he’ll never get out of jail and that’s what we’re hoping for.”
“You take….all the pictures beside be worse but actually it uh see my sister up there uhm so help me out, I cried a little bit and I whenever I was crying and that’s just the way it is, we loved Teresa, we always will”
We track this whole process and uh as we continue to learn more, it’s gonna get harder and harder. They haven’t found her body so ……uhm we don’t know if she’s still alive or not. Oh definitely concern concerned is they are finding more uhm human evidence. No one have been decleared a suspect uhm until they are I don’t really have much to say about them.
I received a call from Sheriff Pagel earlier on, told her the news uhm her reaction uhm, my families reaction, uhm my reaction, it’s something we’ve known for quite some time uhm we’ve known I mean we filed a death certificate uhm in the middle of December uhm and the coroner wouldn’t sign that unless he felt as well that she was uhm no longer here so uhm we’ve known this for a while uhm i..it’s just a double check and uhm we’re thankful to the FBI and the State’s Crime Lab for their help and identifying Teresa and uhm you know it hurts to know it was her but uh now we got some peace of mind knowing that uhm it was her and we don’t have to worry about what other people are saying that she might still be out there, so. There’s never gonna be closure uhm did did we expect what what we learned today? Yes we expected it to hear this today uhm we knew it was coming we uh….
“Uhm my mom called me and I was at work today uhm she called me and told me that uhm she had heard from Sheriff Pagel that uhm that the FBI has said that uh it was Teresa I asked him for ? and uhm my mom called me, uh she said she called my broher and uhm that’s how I found out.”

Habundia said...

“No, we’ve been living our lives just one day at the time uhm you know, a month ago or even more than that, we knew it was Teresa so ever since then we’ve been living our lives the same way uhm doesn’t change anything uhm just confirms what we already knew.”
“We’re trying to go back to work I know, my parents are farmers and uhm they have work every day, morning and night so it gives them something to do uhm I am working too, my brother is working uh but when we are not working uh we’re talking on the phone uh if you ask me today how uhm how I am doing, I am doing alright today but it it’ll change tomorrow it’ll change every day until after a trial comes uhm and then after that you’ll know we’ll still think of Teresa uhm but …..uh you know our… …the pain we feel will never go away but uhm our memories of Teresa will always last with us and that’s what we’re gonna take with us uh for the rest of our lives.”
“No I mean uhm…..when the State Crime Lab told us that it was Teresa uhm yeah that was uh it hurt uhm today we’ve known it was Teresa so we’re hurt today uh it hurts but uh you know we expected it so uh you know would I like to hear something else that it’s not her? I am not…you know I am not sure because that would be one big mess if it wasn’t her uhm no uhm I am thankful that they have said it was her because now uhm there’s no doubt uhm I hate the fact that it is her, obviously, my family does but uhm you know we’ll move on from here.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HOgARK8V1E

“From what we understand, she made all three stops and after the third stop it’s were uhm she’s stopped answering the phone or she stopped making calls, she hadn’t listened any voicemail messages after that, she didn’t make any credit card transactions, so we don’t know what happened after that. (Reporter: Michael) Uhm I mean, the grieving process you know could last days, could last weeks, could last years, you know hopefully we’ll find answers as soon as possible, so we can, you know, begin to, uhm hopefully you know move on, hopefully with Teresa still in our life.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKV1mPJxlsk&feature=emb_logo

“Uhm y… that was….it hurt. Uhm today we’ve known it was Teresa so we’re hurt today. Uhm it hurts but it, you know, we expected it. What I would like to hear was something else, that it is not her. I am not, uhm you know, I am not sure because that would be one big mess if it wasn’t her.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRa7yPDjBzk (the ex boyfriend and brother talking

Interviewer: Did they find anything while you were out searching?
Ex: “I am not really gonna comment on that, but if anything was found, you know, we had proper authority and the professionals take a look at it as they needed.”
Interviewer: “How many times were you on the site? You were there Saturday when they found the car, but how many other times were you on the site?”
Ex: “Uhm I have, I I I wasn’t, I wasn’t on the site, that’s that’s not true at all.”
Interviewer: “Did you get there, Mike? Were you –“
Brother: “I.”
Interviewer: “were you part of the- on the site searching?”
Ex: “We have …..no”
Brother: “no, the people, I mean, the original when we originally found the vehicle was a member of our search party.”
Ex: “It was a member of our search party”
Brother: “Who asked pe…permission to go on to the site uhm, but n..no..no one other than that has ever been on….on the Avery site”
Ex: “On the actually site, it’s been crime scene and taped off, secured.”

frommindtomatter said...

Boyfriend of missing Cape Coral woman speaks:

"I’m worried. I’m worried and scared. Not scared because I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen."

Pena made the statement, “I’m worried and scared”, which is strong and is fronted by the pronoun “I”, signalling commitment to his words. He has chosen those words and they have come from his mind to mouth in milliseconds. To be worried and scared is expected if a loved one is missing. There shouldn’t be any sensitivity connected with those words as it is normal to have such feelings.

Pena immediately seeks to recant what he has said in relation to being “scared”. This shows he is sensitive to what he has just said, and has caught himself saying something he didn’t want to let out. This led him to introduce negative language to his statement (“Not scared). Anything said in the negative we know is doubly important. When someone tells us what they aren’t feeling we know it is something that is on their mind, otherwise why say it. We know being “scared” is on Pena’s mind and it is sensitive to him. If he were genuinely “scared” he might not see her again I wouldn’t expect sensitivity connected to it.

“Not scared [because] I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen.”

Up to now we have a multiple points of sensitivity starting with his need to recant his words. That is followed by his negative statement of being “not scared”, in which he seeks to tell us what he “isn’t”, doubling its importance. He then uses the word “because” (highest level of sensitivity), to justify what he “isn’t”. He gives his justification with the words

“[because] I didn’t do anything, [but]”

He puts the word “but” after his reason why. The word “but” weakens/negates the words which proceed it, and here it weakens the words “I didn’t do anything”.

“I’m [just] worried something [really] did happen.”

He is “just” worried, with the word “just” signalling that another thought is being held in connection with being worried. For example if someone is being quiet or acting out of the ordinary a friend or loved one may ask them, “are you OK?” They may answer “Yeah I`m just tired”. This is different from them answering “yeah, I`m tired”. The first answer allows that there might be another reason for their behaviour. Maybe they have money or relationship issues on their mind etc., and when being asked if they are OK they are comparing those against being tired. That would cause the word “just” to be inserted into their language. If they are simply tired they will say so (without using “Just”) as that would be the only thought held in their mind in relation to the question asked. Pena is comparing being worried against something else, and it is connected with –

“something [really] did happen.”

The word “really” is a qualifier and is used to enhance then meaning of what it is connected to. For example: In order for something to be “really” good there must first be the thought of what good is. When eating soup one may say, it is “really good soup”. In order to make that statement one must know what soup/good soup tastes like. From that basis the qualifier “really” can be added to enhance the meaning of the word which follows it. We know that by Pena saying, “really did happen”, he has a thought/idea as a basis to allow him to qualify his words. Where that thought comes from we don’t know, but he does.

Adrian

Hey Jude said...

Lauren Dumolo

I listened again, and this is the order of the conversation in the phone interview on the audio/video:

GP: I’m worried. I’m worried and scared. Not scared because I didn’t do anything, but I’m just worried something really did happen.

Interviewer: But you don’t just think she left on her own now, do you?

GP:: I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,

Interviewer to camera: Pena told me he last saw her Friday morning when he left for work. When he got home Dumolo was gone,

GP: So my thing is that she went out with one of her friends. Her friend got her all messed up on drugs, and I don’t know what after that,

——
So, Pena WAS asked if he thought Lauren had left her own. I think his repeating of the interviewer’s “left”, rather than choosing the word for himself, doesn’t change that he is telling two stories - first to create the impression that Lauren was taken by someone, because she wouldn’t otherwise have left without clothes, toothbrush, makeup - then that she went out with one of her friends whom he blames for whatever happened.

And after that he doesn’t know. - yet as he was in work, how could he know anything which happened before?

I’m not sure if he says “on drugs” or “and drunk” - it’s not clear. But it’s “his thing” that she went out with a friend. It could be that was his initial story, and what he has been saying. Maybe he was somehow wrong-footed by the reporter asking if he just didn’t think she had left on her own, into talking about clothes, toothbrush and makeup? It’s strange because there’s quite a difference between someone just going out with a friend, which sounds voluntary, and not going on their own because they would have taken at least some clothes, toothbrush and make-up, if they had - which sounds involuntary.

I didn’t think of a dental problem - maybe they both have dental problems - his speech is hard to understand.



John Mc Gowan said...

This is from a week or so ago. Lifted from "Websleuths"
https://twitter.com/winknews/status/1279294116808069120

"The family was checking the routes Lauren normally traveled, such as Four Freedoms Park, which she walked through every day. When her family went to the park, not only did they find her purse, they also found her shirt.

“Right here, down right in here,” said Lauren’s sister, Cassie Carey, at the shoreline where her sister went every day. She and her other sister’s boyfriend found the shirt together.

“We ran over to it and it was this burgundy, lace shirt that Lauren commonly wore,” Carey said. “When we spotted it, we took a look at it and compared it to photos that she was in, so it’s a very distinguished…it has a pattern on it. It’s lace. It’s not just, like, your typical t-shirt. It’s very obvious that it was one of hers.”

But finding the shirt left Lauren’s family with more questions than answers about her disappearance.

“It’s panic. It’s oh my god how did this get here because we’ve been frequenting this park a lot. We’ve been through this park probably two to three times a day, every day for the last week and a half,” said Carey.

Lauren’s sister called the police to turn the shirt over to them as evidence.

“You don’t know if it was left there as evidence that something bad has happened to her or was it left there for us to have false hope. I honestly don’t know because you have a mixed amount of emotions right now,” said Lauren’s father Paul Dumolo.

frommindtomatter said...

Lauren Dumolo

Interviewer: But you don’t just think she left on her own now, do you?

GP: I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,

The question from the interviewer seeks to determine whether Pena believes Laura left on her own or was with someone when she left (a friend or other person/s). In his answer he chooses to include things which would be connected with her going away (clothes, toothbrush, makeup) for an extended period, as opposed to going out for a few hours. Where do his words come from?

People involved in close relationships know everything about each other. From what time they usually get up to what time they usually go to bed on any given day. They know what time someone is due home from work etc… If their partner is late they are aware of the fact very quickly as they know their routines very well. They also know who their friends are and the places they may go to shop, to eat etc…

The interviewer wants to know if he thinks she left alone, and he suggests she must have left with someone “because” she didn’t take her toothbrush etc… Think about that. This means that by his reasoning that if she had left alone she would have taken her toothbrush etc… What husband/wife would come out with such a statement?

“[I don’t] think she left on her own [because] she would’ve taken at [least] some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,”

“I don’t think” – he is going to tell us what he doesn’t think.

“because” – he is going to justify what he doesn’t think.

“she would’ve taken at [least] some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,” – The unexpected.

We do know that she left her phone at home, but he doesn’t mention it, and that would be something very significant and logical to consider regarding where she had gone.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

@ Habundia

It is a very interesting case. I spent many hours looking at it a few months ago. The main question is did Teresa leave Avery’s property after taking the photos of the car for Auto Trader. I believe she did, and I believe it was Bobby Dassey that followed and killed Teresa. There were only two people on the property when Teresa was there, Steven Avery and Bobby Dassey. Here is a statement he made at the trial:

Kratz: After seeing her taking any pictures, did you see her do anything?

Bobby: She [started]... [Before] I got in the shower, she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer.

He is a liar.

Adrian.

John Mc Gowan said...

@ frommindtomatter

"The interviewer wants to know if he thinks she left alone, and he suggests she must have left with someone “because” she didn’t take her toothbrush etc… Think about that. This means that by his reasoning that if she had left alone she would have taken her toothbrush etc… What husband/wife would come out with such a statement?"

Very good observation.

Yes, it is unnecessary information but only unnecessary to us, not to the him.

He has as reason to mention it. Words dont come from a vacuum.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Lauren Dumolo

GP:: I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,

This may be a stupid question, but how does he know she didn't take any clothes? I'd venture to say that most boyfriends/husbands don't know every item of clothing in their girfriend's/wife's wardrobe and wouldn't know if everything was there or not.

My SIL recently fled her home (DV); my brother told me all of her stuff was exactly where she left it. I know some victims do purchase or smuggle out a spares of their stuff (often leaving it with a trusted person or hiding it somewhere they can can access it quickly to leave.

In the absence of a dental issue or health issue where brushing your teeth is pretty important (endocarditis), I'd expect to hear him speak about her phone, her makeup, her hairbrush...not her toothbrush. I wonder if one or both of them had a history of staying over at the other's house before they moved in together? I've been told the measure of those relationships is that "You know it[the relationship] is serious [the person's ready to "commit" to you exclusively), when he/she stars leaving their toothbrush at your place."

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thinking out loud here...It sounds like he's trying to imply she didn't take any clothes, without saying that. But is that because he's not familiar with how many clothes she has? Or that he wouldn't know enough to know if any were missing?
I think that unless you're the person who regularly does the laundry or purchases the clothes, you likely wouldn't know all of the clothing a person had.

Pound puppy said...

Hi Peter. I have some questions for you. I’m a 51 yr old lady and I have been dealing with depression and anxiety for about 40 years. It has been worse in the last 8 years. Lots of contradictions I don’t understand. I love so many people, have a lot of friends, and am very socially adept. However I have trouble getting thru a day without retreating to my bed for hours. I decline most social invitations and would rather hear no noise and be alone. Interesting beach use my biggest fear is “being alone” figuratively. I couldn’t fathom life without friends or family. I was a cutter during teen years. I have 2 adult children who are have great character. They are loving and caring. They also are very smart and successful. I tried very hard to be a good mom. Loving them was #1 but protecting them was a close second. If/ whenanything went wrong for them it was my fault. I needed and would do better. I’m an advocate for the underdog (I have stood up to bullies as long as I can remember. I was incessantly worried when my kids were little that I wasn’t doing everything right. I was better with that as they aged. I have reoccurring dreams. About abuse. I was the least favorite of my dad’s kids despite being the brightest and most moral. I was mistreated. As I write this I can hardly breathe.

frommindtomatter said...

@ Habundia

Some analysis on one of the transcripts you provided. Part 1

Interviewer: Did they find anything while you were out searching?

Ex: “I am not [really] gonna comment on that, [but] if anything was found, [you know], we had [proper authority] and the professionals take a look at it as they needed.”

They were asked a simple question – “Did they find anything”. That question seeks a yes or no answer to it, or perhaps a statement showing limitation such as – “I can’t comment on that”. What we see is that the Ex-boyfriend when answering chooses to include extra information which is not connected to the question. He says:

“[if] anything was found [you know], we had [proper authority]”

This tells us that the question has triggered the thought of “proper authority” into the ex-boyfriends mind in connection to it. He is sensitive to how something was found and feels the need to mention what he was not asked about. This sensitivity will become greater as the interview progresses.

Interviewer: “How many times were you on the site? You were there Saturday when they found the car, but how many other times were you on the site?”

Ex: “Uhm I have, I I I wasn’t, I wasn’t on the site, that’s that’s not true at all.”

The interviewers question has put the speaker on the spot. It is a simple numeric question (“how many times”) and should be straightforward to answer. The speaker needs time to think how to answer the question which is shown by his first word being “uhm” (pause for thought). This is important. If he had been there multiple times a pause would be appropriate as he may be working out just how many times he had been there in his mind, but if he has never been there then the answer will be very straightforward and we don’t expect a need to pause and think about it. Note after the pause he says “I have” but stops his sentence which signals he is restricting information. He restarts with –

“I I I wasn’t, I wasn’t on the site”

He stutters on the pronoun “I” which shows he is having difficulty committing to his words and is under stress. Next there are repeated words “I wasn’t, I wasn’t” (sensitivity x2). Remember he had to pause before answering the question, if he has not been to the site why would he need to pause to think about his answer? The answer would be very easy and not require calculation. In fact the expected answer to the question would be “I haven’t been there before”, or something similar.

“that’s that’s not true at all”

More repeated words followed by the negative “not true at all”. Not only is it not true, but not true “at all”. The speaker has a need to go beyond what is not true and stretch it further.

Adrian

frommindtomatter said...

Part 2

Interviewer: “Did you get there, Mike? Were you –“

Brother: “I.”

Interviewer: “were you part of the- on the site searching?”

Ex: “We have …..no”

Brother: “no, the people, I mean, the [original] when [we originally] found the vehicle was a member of our search party.”

Again the interviewer asks a simple question which demands a yes or no answer - “were you part of the on the site searching?” The brother starts by saying “no”, but this question is directed at the current search in progress which allows him to make a denial. His denial does not cover if he was there on a prior occasion. Again we see that just like the ex-boyfriend he has extra information not related to the question which he has need for others to know.

“the people, I mean, the [original] when [we originally] found the vehicle was a member of our search party.”

We must not interpret his words or we may end up concluding he said “the people who found the vehicle were part of our search party”. He didn’t say that. He introduces the word “original” and “originally”, these words speak to “being the first”. If there is a first then there will follow a second and third and so on. Why does he try to give the title “the original” to someone else? Also note he then says “we originally” as opposed to the appropriate “they originally”. If you study the structure of the sentence there are many problems with it.

“[the people], I mean, the original when [we] originally found the vehicle was [a member] of our search party.”

“the people” is plural and speaks to more than one, it later changes to “a member”. “we originally”, signals unity in finding the vehicle although he tells us he was not there. He frames the words “when [we] originally found the vehicle” in the sentence. “when [we] originally found the vehicle [was] a member”, this is broken and makes no sense.

He has provided information he wasn’t asked for. He has told us the vehicle want just found, but “originally found” (meaning it has been discovered more than once). His pronoun and sentence structure is way off, and has framed the words ““when [we] originally found the vehicle”.

Ex: “It was a member of our search party”

The Ex has come to the rescue and seeks to clarify the brothers words as he has seen what a mess he is making.

Brother: “Who asked pe…permission to go on to the site uhm, but n..no..no one other than that has [ever] been on….on the Avery site”

He has transmission problems, and a need to include that permission was asked for which harkens back to the sensitivity earlier of “we had proper authority”. He seeks to state that “no one other” had been on the site, and we see he needs to stretch this using the word “ever”. It is not enough no one other has been there, it is important to stress “not ever” (at any time) which shows he is sensitive to time.

Ex: “On the [actually] site, it’s been crime scene and taped off, secured.”

There is “a site” and there is an “actual site”. The Ex is holding two thoughts about the site. One is most likely the “crime scene and taped off, secured”, and the other one is prior to that, when he and the brother were on it making the original finding of the vehicle.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

Lauren Dumolo

Interviewer: But you don’t just think she left on her own now, do you?

GP:: I don’t think she left on her own because she would’ve taken at least some clothes … or her toothbrush or her makeup,

——

The context is that Lauren has been missing for three weeks. The boyfriend suggests she didn’t leave voluntarily because she would have taken some items if she had left on her own - he includes very few things and he makes all of them optional, “at least some clothes - or her toothbrush or her makeup” - why does he say ‘or’ rather than ‘and”? Did Lauren usually take only one item out with her when she left her apartment on her own?

As he says this after three weeks, it could be that he has difficulty in accepting that his girlfriend might have wanted to leave him and that he hopes others will believe she would have taken just one or other of those things because she’d be back in a day or so.

Three weeks have passed - why not: “If she’d left on her own she would have contacted someone by now?” Or, “she would have come back for her stuff by now” ?

Also, if she was just going somewhere for a day or two, why would he not have known about it? He’s not too convincing - at the least you’d question the state of the relationship.


Extraneous information - It is stated in other media that two phones belonging to Lauren were found in her apartment, one of which did not work. The boyfriend must have known this when he gave the interview, yet he does not mention her phone. Does he want the listener to assume that she did take her phone - or did Lauren perhaps have another phone which is missing with her?

Hearsay: the boyfriend lived in Lauren’s apartment, A man at the park apparently had a conversation with Lauren not long before she disappeared, in which she asked if he knew of anyone who had a place to rent, as she needed to get out of a situation. I wonder if she felt she had to leave her own home, or if she was looking for a place for her boyfriend.

——

It’s a pity the interview didn’t include what he actually said about his leaving for work and finding Lauren gone when he returned home.

Habundia said...

@Adrian (part 1)

Thank you for responding. It's this case that has me kept away from this blog for quite some time because it took so much of my time (a few years already.....time flies) back in 2016 I have tried to get attention to the case on the blog and I was disappointed when I found out Peter actually thought Steven to be guilty, which I read him saying in some of his blog topics. Because Steven had said I am Innocent, instead of saying I didn't kill her. (Which he does have said many times, just like he has said many times 'I am innocent) At that time I hadn't do much research, 4 years in time and I have spend probably hundreds of hours of my free time into this case.(and continue to do so)

The main question I think is.........did Steven kill Teresa Halbach?.....and I still wholeheartedly believe he has not, just like his nephew Brendan Dassey....both are innocent of this crime. So the next question would be: Who did? (if Steven and Brendan did not)

Yes Bobby is absolutely a liar, he has told his brother Blaine and his mother that he had seen Teresa leave the yard, his mom made a statement on FB years after the fact that he indeed had said this to her when someone had asked her straight up......but the question is did he lie to protect his own ass because his computer contained a lot of horrific material and so it was easier for him to throw his uncle under the bus because he already was a target for LE from the past (the PB case for which he was exonerated in 2003 and the depositions he was going through suing the state for 36 million dollar)or did Bobby Dassey lie because he has knowledge about the disappearance of Teresa Halbach?....these questions remain unanswered at this time......(I say disappearance, because until this day I haven't seen actual proof of her being death, her death certificate raises many questions and so does the handling of the DNA evidence and it's 'matching' part....and I say this after studying over thousands of pages of documents, there is just no undisputed proof, so to me she is still a 'MISSING PERSON'.......that said....I don't say she hasn't die, I just haven't seen undisputed proof of such)

Back to the brother (Mike) of the missing woman (Teresa)
The car was found on the 5th by a cousin of Teresa's stepfather (who is the brother of Teresa's biological father who died in an accident during a vacation), Pamela Sturm and her daughter Nikole Sturm.
Investigator Colborn (who also was part of the depositions that were coming to an end within 2 weeks of Teresa becoming missing) called the license plate of the RAV4 to dispatch on the 3rd and there is documentation that the RAV also was booked in as being towed. He denials he was standing at the car at the time he called in the plates and says he was 'just checking if the number he had gotten was the correct number), at trial his whole face turned red when he answered this question (I know that has nothing to do with Statement Analysis), but it does has everything to do with nonverbal communication (the both together can provide lots of information)
Multiple witnesses have said to have seen the RAV somewhere at highway I147 after the time the RAV supposedly never left the Avery Yard. One witness had told an investigator at a gas station that he had seen a car left aside the road....at the time he didn't knew who the investigator was.....after seeing MAM he recognized Colborn as the one he had told it to.

Habundia said...

@Adrian (part 2)

“the people, I mean, the [original] when [we originally] found the vehicle was a member of our search party.”

So the 'originally' found car......could have been because of this part of the case, there have been many speculations about the RAV found on the yard not to be the RAV that Teresa owned at the time.....there are so many issues with this car....and although the State agreed on giving Steven's new attorney mrs. Zellner access to the RAV in 2016 or 2017......the State until this day has never went through with what they agreed on (and no higher court has demanded the state to turn over the RAV as agreed on), unfortunately it is believed the RAV no longer exist but that part remains a mysterie. Also it is established that at some point Teresa had gotten a call in her car for an appointment rescheduling. She wrote the information down on a sheet of paper while she was in her car (according to the caller)....after she had gone missing, Ryan turned over the sheet on which the specific appointment was written down by Teresa, the sheet that should have been in her RAV if she never left the Avery yard after her appointment with Steven.....so how did he got this sheet?.....the ex moved in her home the minute she was reported missing and stayed there for an undetermined length of time after that.

The 'originally' part refers to the vehicle......not to 'a member of our search party' (as I read his words), the sentence in it's whole is a mess and could be easily waved away and interpreted as you said: “the people who found the vehicle were part of our search party”
The first 'Original' (the real RAV, not the RAV that was found on the yard, the actual vehicle) and the second 'Originally' (the RAV found alongside a crossroad and being called in by Inv. Colborn and booked in as being towed on the 3th, the location)
His sentence doesn't make sense at all, because he is looking for the 'right' words (not the truth) when he tries to answer the question and therefor tackles over his own words. And as you rightfully say: Ryan is there for the rescue.


The RAV was found on the yard, Pam Sturm how found the RAV, 20 min after she had asked for permission from Earl Avery to go search on the yard. The Ex (Ryan Hilegas) provided Pam Sturm a map of the yard and a camera. She was the only person who was part of the search team that was provided an camera when they did the search. Pam straightly walked on to the RAV only 20 minutes into her search effort.....in court she said
Q. Looking at it now, do you think you got lucky?
A. Yeah. Well, not lucky, God showed us the way; I do believe that."

Habundia said...

@Adrian (part 3)

The taped of site is on Kuss rd, pictures from the flyover show very much activity going on at Kuss rd even a Ambulance was called in to Kuss rd....yet when K9 dogs were brought in to search the yard and when they led to the area at Kuss rd the handlers were told the dogs weren't allowed to go further......the Avery Yard has never been taped of....hundreds of people have been going in/out the yard over a period of 8 days....also the Ex has been on the Avery Yard multiple times after the yard had been taken over by LE (he's signed in on crime scene log multiple times) while the yard was considered a 'crime scene'.
When the coroner found out through the news about the 'found bones' she called in to come do her job. She was told she wasn't needed and if she did come she would be arrested (after this she quit doing her job it had made her so upset she didn't feel she could do her job any longer)
Prosecutor Kratz said about the coroner......."You know what the coroner does? They kick the body and say it is dead."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEV4aRAkuh4

There are so many more disturbing issues in this case (I can go on and talk about it for hours) that even after 4 (almost 5) years of research there still are found new disturbing things by different people (all fighting for justice) related to this case, that's why I believe this to be hanging over the state of Wisconsin as a big tornado waiting to come down' in what I think will become one of the largest misconduct cases Wisconsin ever has known (or at least has become visible for the outside to see)
They have stolen so many years of this man's life (and took his nephew with it)to protect their own asses

18 years.....of which 8 years were extra after jailhouse personnel had called in to tell Colborn and told him they had an inmate confessing to the assault. He told his supervisor...Lt. Lenk and the information was put away and never looked at until it would come to light after Steven having been exonerated. Also mrs Culhane, forensic specialist, took almost 1,5 year before she conducted a DNA test on the hair that was found and it came back to the person that 8 years before had confessed to the assault. Mrs. Culhane is also the person who in this case within days after the samples were taken had done all of her testings on 185 items that were brought in to her, and to conclude the victim to be a 25-30 year old female and the DNA profile matching that of Teresa (with only 7 matching alleles, where 15 would have been the norm at that time of this case and at this time the FBI even wants 20 alleles before DNA is to be taken in as trustworthy) (there have been many vids done about this DNA thing by the FoulPlay team on YT....as they have made tremendous vids about this case, with their own DNA expert as part of their team)

Thank you so much for your analysis it's always amazing to see how words can say so much.

jjd said...

I have read that AI can have the ability to do statement analysis (but the study I read was discerning the possible suicidal tendencies of lgbtq youth).

Peter, do you think that statement analysis can be relegated in the near future to AI?

frommindtomatter said...

Analysis of Bobby Dassey :Part 1

Kratz: After seeing her taking any pictures, did you see her do anything?

Bobby: She [started]... [Before] I got in the shower, she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer.

There were two people on the Avery property when Teresa Halbach arrived to take pictures of a vehicle for Auto trader. One was Steven Avery and the other was Bobby Dassey. The big question is did Teresa leave the Avery property. The above quote is taken from the documentary “making a murderer”, and I will add another later from Steven Avery which is relative to it.

Kratz asked Dassey a question, one that doesn’t need working out and can be answered simply through the use of experiential memory. All Dassey needs to do is tell us what he knows/remembers. As Peter often of says, “We should let his words guide us”.

Bobby: She [started]... [Before] I got in the shower, she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer.

Bobby begins by saying “She started”. We note that “started” is an incomplete action and in context refers to Teresa “walking”. He doesn’t say “she walked”, and as we analyse from the standpoint that what the speaker is saying is true we should believe him. This means that if she did walk we expect he would tell us so, but he cannot say that. Instead he can only say “she started”, which means we should not interpret that she did walk.

Bobby stops after saying “She started” (self-censors), and inserts some extra information. That he stops to do that tells us that this information is important to him, and it is something he needs the listener to know. Note he was only asked, “did you see her do anything?”, but he has a need to tell us something extra. This information is so important to him that he has stopped answering the question in order to insert it, meaning he is giving it priority. What does he tell us?

“[Before] I got in the shower”

The word “before” is used to mark time, and as it has been added into his statement in connection with extra information (unasked for), this shows us that timing is important to him, he is sensitive to it. He wasn’t asked about what he was doing, but he has prioritised adding it to his statement above answering what Kratz asked him.

Why was he watching Teresa through the window? Why is time sensitive to him? And why can he only say “she started” (incomplete) opposed to telling us what she did?

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Analysis of Bobby Dassey :Part 2

“she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer.”

After inserting the extra information he returns back to the question asked and says “she [actually] [started] walking”. Again we have an incomplete action, she only “started walking” as opposed to him saying “she walked”, if he can say she walked we expect him to do so. He also adds “actually” in front of his words, with the word “actually” in language used as a comparative word.

When someone says “I actually got home at five”, instead of simply saying “I got home at five”, we know by their use of the word “actually” they are comparing two thoughts against each other. We could deduce by what they said that the time they got back was not the time they expected to do so. They were thinking of another time in context with their statement.

“she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer.”

In his above words we see that Bobby is holding two thoughts in connection with his statement “she actually started walking”. Why would he have two thoughts about what he is saying and what is he comparing his words against? Note she didn’t walk over to Stevens trailer, Bobby didn’t say that. He is comparing something which is incomplete against something else. I don’t believe Teresa walked over to Stevens trailer, I believe Bobby :)

Steven Avery in the documentary says that after he came back out of his trailer (after Teresa had gone) he was going to go to see Bobby, but Bobby had “already” gone. By saying “already” Steven is telling us that he knew Bobby was going to leave but it was ahead of when he expected. Steven Avery also says “he [just] left” regarding Bobby’s leaving. He is comparing how he left against something else. In context I believe he was expecting to see Bobby for some reason but was surprised to find him gone (supported by his use of “already).

Adrian.

John Mc Gowan said...

Making a Murderer - Steven Avery

An analysis by Mark McClish
Posted January 2016

http://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/steven-avery/

John Mc Gowan said...

No phone, no money, no trace of Lauren Dumolo: Where is the Cape Coral mother?

Snipped:
Lauren’s family is holding out hope that they’ll be reunited with her someday, but the reality of the case is hitting her father hard.

“I think she was murdered,” her father said. “I think something happened and either she got into an argument with somebody or someone tried to sexually abuse her or take her, and she was murdered. Until I have actual evidence that it was something else, that’s my belief.”

As with most missing person or murder cases, investigators often question the people closest to the victim. In this case, Gabriel, Lauren’s boyfriend, said he spoke to investigators and took a polygraph test.

“I don’t need to be nervous, cause I really didn’t, you know, I don’t know anything,” he explained.

Lauren’s boyfriend said he didn’t hear from her after he left to go to work. He claims he didn’t get a call or text from her that morning, despite phone records saying otherwise, according to her family.

“Maybe she was looking for an apartment, to get out of where we were at,” he said. “So I was thinking she was looking for an apartment around, and I don’t know, maybe someone took advantage of that, and that was it, and never came back. That’s my theory.”

Her boyfriend Gabriel said he hasn’t been able to take down any pictures of her in the apartment they shared, hoping she is still alive for her daughter’s sake.

“I love you to the moon and back,” he cried. “Me, her, her daughter. We always said that. We love you to the moon and back. And not to be able to hear her voice, or see her, it just hurts.”
Cape Coral police could not confirm or deny if Gabriel is considered a person of interest in this investigation, saying they have not ruled anyone out.

“Did you have anything to do with Lauren’s disappearance?” Digital EP Bein asked.

“No, I don’t got nothing to do with it,” Gabriel insisted.

“One way or another, everything is found out,” her sister explained. “It’s better if you come forward and state your case and say what happened and tell the truth than for us to continue to worry and be scared and not have answers.”

https://nbc-2.com/news/crime/2020/08/07/no-phone-no-money-no-trace-of-lauren-dumolo-where-is-the-cape-coral-mother/

Habundia said...

@Adrian..........thank you again.
Just a quick glance I did.

Bobby: She [started]... [Before] I got in the shower, she [actually] [started] walking over to Steven's trailer."

It occurred to me he used 'the shower' = didn't water related things relate to sexual activity?

"Steven Avery in the documentary says that after he came back out of his trailer (after Teresa had gone) he was going to go to see Bobby, but Bobby had “already” gone. By saying “already” Steven is telling us that he knew Bobby was going to leave but it was ahead of when he expected. Steven Avery also says “he [just] left” regarding Bobby’s leaving. He is comparing how he left against something else. In context I believe he was expecting to see Bobby for some reason but was surprised to find him gone (supported by his use of “already)."

Steven had gone to the trailer around 11 or something before TH had arrived on the property to take pictures.......he had seen Bobby's car in front of the home so he knew Bobby to be home at that time ......so that could explain why he was 'surprised' to see Bobby had gone.
Unfortunately the documentary has not given a good representation of the gravity of this case.....it's much more worse then they have shown ;)

Habundia said...

@John
Thank you for that link, I have seen this analysis back then when it was just posted in 2016.....or maybe some time after, but it was around that time but after I already had looked into casefiles that were shared by those who had FOIA'ed it. It made me furious :P
Because by then I had already started looking into the case files and many other things and not only looking at what the MaM documentary had showed.....they missed out SO MUCH (i get they were bounded to time and length but they did miss a lot of important stuff)

It should be noted that Steven alrady had been sitting in jail for over 18 years.....8 years of which they were aware that ANOTHER INMATE from another jail had CONFESSED to the sexual assault on Penny Beernsten. Someone inside the jail called Inv. Wiegert and told him that they had someone in their prison who had confessed. Wiegert told Pagel and then it was put into a drawer and never looked at again.....until the day Steven got released.....then Wiegert wrote a report (8 years after it had occurred) about that what had the correctional officer had told him.....Sherry Culhane also took 1,5 year to do a DNA test on the hair that was found on the victim, which belonged to the person who had confessed to the assault in 1995, which led to the exoneration of Steven in 2003. 9,5 half years he had sat EXTRA in jail because LE FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB!
Considering this........his statement to the press when asked "What do you want to say today?"
And answering with 'I AM INNOCENT' (isn't the shortest answer the best? I dind't kill Teresa Halbach would have more words to describe the same of not having done the crime one is being accused of?)
Is what I would expect someone to say who already had served a 18 years of WRONGFUL conviction, I wouldn't expect this of one who hadn't. He had stated 18 years HE DID NOT attack Penny Beernsten.......NOBODY believed him (even though he had 16 witnesses at the time that stated they had seen him (and his wife and 5 childeren) around the time of the attack many miles away from where the attack to place. He would have had took his wife and 5 childeren to the place the attack took place to within the timeline having been able to commit the crime, it was minute work)
So why would he think he would be believed now if he again stated : he did not kill Teresa Halbach? No I would expect him to exactly say what he did: I AM INNOCENT.....weak or not.....it was his defense because he knew he didn't do it just like the first time and AGAIN he was facing a guilty verdict, because he was already warned before the disappearance of Teresa to BE CAREFUL....because it was already suggested by his lawyers the police could do something because of his 36 million lawsuit he had filled against the state .....he had been out for only 2 years....who wouldnt be AFRAID AS HELL to be charged with a murder after they'ed already had done a long wrongful sentence? I know I WOULD! and that is what I would have said myself if someone had asked me at that point 'What i wanted to say'.......that I AM INNOCENT! I wouldn't have felt the need to say I didn't kill Teresa Halbach because I know I didn't.

Habundia said...

@John
Also Steven is just like Brendan a person with a low intelligence level, these people just have less words when they speak. I have a daughter myself with a lower IQ as average and have experienced first handed how difficult it sometimes is to talk with someone who doesn't have the words they want to say.....I am someone who uses many words to describe something simple :P (as you have probably noticed :D) so it often has been a battle and often times very frustrating for me to deal with (just like it has been difficult and frustrating for her I would think) because I had a hard time to understand why someone wouldn't have the words to describe what they want to say.....after 18 year (she just turned 18) I now know she just hasn't got the words.
I've listened to over a 1000 phone calls Steven has made during his time in jail and when you listen to them you know Steven hasn't got words for a lot of things either. His sentences sometimes are messed up when he tries to describe something and often times he just can't seem to really express what he is wanting to say. Just like many others in his family. They are all very uneducated (not that I have had much education, but I have learned a lot by reading and doing research because of interest or because I wanted to know more about it myself, i know not everyone does that)........my daughter for example doesn't do that in any way and her knowlegde about things is very little (when I was her age I knew a lot more about many things, she does not. Not that is a bad thing but it is a fact)

frommindtomatter said...

John Mc Gowan said...
“Making a Murderer - Steven Avery. An analysis by Mark McClish”

Part 1

Yeah, interesting analysis and I will post back my thoughts fully on it when I get time. There are a lot of documents available online such as police interview transcripts etc, and it is important to look at as much as possible to be able to analyse from a greater context. One example is that most people would believe that when Fassbender and Wiegert interviewed Brendan Dassey at his school it was his first interview, and he was later asked to go to the station for a more detailed interview. There is a transcript of them interviewing him at the school and their language suggests that Brendan had been interviewed before then, which means ideas could have already been planted in his head. I will find it and post it later.

One example from Marks analysis:

Reporter: "Did she mention any other appointments that day or anything like that?"

Avery: "Not, I don't [think] so [cause] [most of the time] she takes a picture. [Then] she writes down the serial number. [Then] she comes and collects the money and [that's about it.]

As Mark said the word “think” shows uncertainty and there isn’t a problem there. In fact if we believe Avery it will show that he is not certain and one reason for that could be he wasn’t paying attention as it was no big deal.

“cause” – equals a need to explain, but if you are uncertain about something and you have to deduce what happened rather than work from memory it would be appropriate. Remember Avery said “think” which shows he is uncertain.

“most of the time” – means that it is not all of the time. In context it speaks to the fact that Teresa has been there multiple times and Avery has an idea what she does “most of the time”. We should always look for an alternative explanation in statement analysis as if one is found then we must discard our original understanding of the language as it may be wrong and that would be unacceptable. Imagine that “most of the time” Teresa does what Avery suggests, but at other times she has done other things. Perhaps sit in her car and do paperwork, or make some phone calls, or sort her camera equipment etc… We have to accept these possibilities which mean I would not be able to use that statement as anything conclusive.

Note Avery appropriately uses the text bridge “then” on two occasions to skip time. We understand that between the things he tells us that Teresa would have done some time would have elapsed.

“and that's about it” – This is similar in analysis terms to “most of the time”. Avery is not talking about what she did that day when he says “that’s about it”, so we can’t view it from that context. He is talking about what she did “most of the time”. Also what if on some occasions she shot the breeze with Avery, asked how his parents were etc… That could be another explanation for “that’s about it” when connected with “most of the time”.

The big question is – Is Avery weak and vague as he seeks to avoid talking of something sensitive, and distance himself it. Or is he weak and vague because he wasn’t paying attention to Teresa as she has been there multiple times taking pictures of vehicles and it is all just routine to him. If he wasn’t paying attention his starting with the word “think” sets up the rest of his statement.

frommindtomatter said...

Part 2

A problem which Mark points out in his analysis is:

“Avery then talks about Halbach's actions. This is important because he was not asked about what she did. Everything a person says has a meaning. What Halbach did that day is important to Avery so he voluntarily mentions it.” (Mark McClish)

How can we be sure Avery is talking about that day? His statement is based on “most of the time”, not that day.

If we believe Avery is uncertain then we expect he would be deducing what happened in order to make his answer. The question was “"Did she mention any other appointments that day or anything like that?" If he didn’t know, but tried to answer the question one option would be to base his answer on what happened “most of the time”. This would lead him to the statement he made.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Brendan Dassey interview:

This is a snippet from the interview conducted at Mishicot High School with Brendan Dassey on 02/27/06. The interviewers were Inv. Mark Wigert and Special Agent Tom Fassbender. I believe many people will be under the impression that this interview was the first serious one with Brendan Dassey, and that after this he was taken to the Police station and interviewed again. See below that Fassbender indicates knowledge to suggest otherwise.

Fassbender:

“You`re not under arrest, you know that. You`re free to go at any time you want. Ah, just listen to us, you don’t have to answer any questions if you don’t want to, and stuff like that, OK? Um and I, I would really appreciate if you would just kinda relax and open up with us. [We`re not here ta, ta jump in your face or get into ya or anything like that]. [I know] that [may] have happened [before], and [stuff like that], [we`re, we`re] not here to do that.

“[We`re not her ta, ta jump in your face or get into ya or anything like that]”

First we see Fassbender is telling Dassey what they`re “not here for”, and he introduces aggressive language in connection with it, “jump in your face or get into ya”. This said in the negative makes it doubly important. It is expected he would tell Dassey what they were there for, and would say something like, “We`re just here to ask you a few questions, just relax”. So why the introduction of aggressive language, where did it come from? In his next sentence we find out –

“[I know] that [may] have happened [before], and [stuff like that]”

By saying “I know”, Fassbender reveals he has personal knowledge of the words which follow. It is a strong statement as opposed to saying “I think” or something similar, and we should view it as being reliable information.

"that [may] have happened [before]"

The word “may”, weakens his statement, but it also allows for the things (jump in your face or get into ya) to have happened. There is a conflict in language from “I know” which is strong, to “may”, which weakens commitment. He may not be certain what exactly happened, but he knows something happened and by including the aggressive language it suggests he has an idea about it.

Crucially we note Fassbender uses the word “before” to mark time. This shows his knowledge (“I know), is based on something he believes happened “before”, which points to Dassey having been interviewed prior to this School interview. That interview was likely an aggressive one with accusations and suggestions being put on him. If Brendan Dassey has been interviewed multiple times prior to the famous “making a murderer” Police station interview then we must consider anything he said could be tainted by prior interviews making it poor for analysis as much of the information may have been artificially placed into his mind.

Adrian.