Mother: Please, if you have any information, just give it to us, please, we need to find AJ. We really need to find him - he’s gone for one day now. I need him back, please any information-give it to us. I’d appreciate it so much, I need to find him please.
Reporter: It must be so tough for you, Kelly, and I’m so sorry you’re having to go through this -how are you feeling, what’s going through your head at the moment?
Mother. I just wanna find my son. I need to find AJ. Please anything, please give it to us, or I’d appreciate anything we need to find AJ now, please -
Reporter: And he was just here, he was in the back yard with you?
Mother: He was just here, we were here in the porch, he didn’t go anywhere. He’s not a wanderer, he doesn’t go anywhere.
Friend: We were surrounding the house, I was sitting on the hammock on the left side of the house, she was in the kitchen, her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were just preparing for lunch, uh - an-and they’ve been her for three months, this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay? This is - this is out of character for him. Yes, he-he’s on the spectrum of autism, but he’s the most loveliest boy you ever meet. And he’s attached to his mum, he’s always by his mum’s side.
Reporter: that’s what Alan was saying, Kelly, like, AJ was - you guys were inseparable, weren’t you? Tell us about your relationship.
Mother: I’m his universe. He holds my hand all day, all night, we’re together all the time.
Reporter: How out of character is it for him to wander off?
Friend: No.
Mother: no, never - never.
Reporter: Rumours are wide that he might have been taken. Can you tell me about that?
Mother: I think he’s been taken. He’s been taken. If he was around here I would have found him by now. I have searched the property how many times have we searched and I’m still driving around and I cannot find him. If he was here he’d be close to the property - he’s not here, I can’t find him.
Friend: We’re on six hundred and fifty acres, Uh Anthony and his wife, he own three hundred and thirty, I own three hundred and thirty, we’re at the end of his land and at the start of mine, there are no homes on the other side, there are no homes, there’s nothing there - there’s one or two houses. No car has any business to be on this road other than to go to these homes. So every car we know, we know the neighbours - we’ve invited over for barbees, we know them all personally, this is a small tight knit community with about two hundred and thirty homes.
So it’s just like something doesn’t stack up.
Friend: something does not stack up.
Mother: No.
Friend: Something does not stack up.
Mother: Something’s not right. Something not right.
Friend: When I got up when they raised the alarm - I s-stood up and I see a Ute which we put out a description, we’ve let the police know, we’ve let the detective know, put out - I saw it just driving along Yango Drive, which is a hundred metres from the house, driving - out - to Putty Road. One we didn’t see it enter, we see every car that enters, because it’s a dead end, there’s nowhere to go other than to three houses. One’s abandoned, and t-two houses are occupied, and both of those homes we know - the third property doesn’t have a house on it - we also own as well, right - we’re away from everything at the moment to try and be safe and secure and for this to happen on private property, on six hundred and fifty acreage, there’s - so many questions that need to be answered.
[comtinued]
Reporter: And Kelly, can you tell us a bit about AJ, you know, what he’s like as a person, you know.
Mother: AJ’s a happy boy. He’s always smiling and laughing all day all night, and he’s always happy. He’s placid. He’s such a good boy. He’s amazing.
Reporter: What was he wearing at the time?
Mother: He was wearing a grey hoody jumper, grey tracksuit pants and black shoes with red uh trimming on it.
AJ’s needs are not amongst the many needs his mother names. A mother of a missing child, whom she believed “taken”, would be expected to be frantic abiut his whereabouts, and whoever might have taken him, and why - to plead for his safe return, or for the abductor to leave him in a safe place where soon he would be found.
She asks for information, yet volunteers none which could be helpful. The use of “I’d appreciate it so much” is so soft in the circumstances. Why appreciate “information”, and “so much”, rather than beg for her baby’s safe return.
“I just wanna find my son” is not as committed a statement as would be “I want to find my son.”
She says she is AJ’s universe, rather than he is her universe, and that he always holds her hand; in describing him, that he is happy, placid and good.
If I didn’t know AJ was a three year old boy, I might mistake him for a missing puppy, but puppies don’t smile and laugh all night.
—-
Interesting how the friend gives a good introduction to AJ’s father, as Anthony, his best friend - Kelly, meanwhile, is just “she”, yet he’s giving the interview with her rather than the father. I wonder why he thinks we need to know about his property? What’s the sensitivity round him getting up, standing up, when they raised the alarm? Also, why does he say there are there no homes on the other side whilst also saying two or three houses are there, all in the same sentence? I thought he meant there are no homes, and described them as houses because they are not occupied - then he said two are occupied and described them as homes. Curious, if not as curious as “I”m looking you straight in the face” from behind mirrored sunglasses.
Kelly is letting us know that she is a good mother in saying she is AJ’s universe, he holds her hand all the time, they are always together, he smiles and laughs all day and night, which sounds unlikely. Does Kelly smile and laugh all day and night, too, after holding AJ’s hand all day? She describes AJ’s attention towards her, rather than it being hers towards AJ, which makes me question if he craves attention without necessarily receiving it. Three year olds are not known for their placidity - it seems out of character for the age group, unless in front of a screen.
Kelly: Please if you have any information just give to us please. We need to find AJ. We really need to find him. He`s gone for one day now, I need him back. Please any information, give it to us. I`d appreciate it so much I need to find him please.
Interviewer: It must be so tough for you Kelly and I`m so sorry you’re having to go through this. How are you feeling, what’s going through your head at moment?
Kelly: I just want to find my son. I need to find AJ. Please anything, please give it to us… or I appreciate anything. We need to find AJ now… Please
Initial statements from the mother are strong with the priority on finding her son. In the above transcript she uses the word “need” x6 in connection to finding AJ. Three fronted with pronoun “we” and three with the strong personal commitment of “I”. This shows her mind is focused on finding/getting her son back. Even when asked by the interviewer “How are you feeling, what’s going through your head at moment?” she maintains her commitment when she replies – “I just want to find my son”. That is all that matters to her, she doesn’t say she is tired, hungry etc… to her those things do not exist. Her thoughts are fixated on finding her son.
There are some statements made by the mother later and the family friend (who wore sunglasses all the way through the interview when not needed) spoken in the negative.
Kelly: [He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch. He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.
[He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch.
This statement starts with the pronoun “He” and speaks to location (here). Kelly changes it to “we” and gives the location as on the porch. Her first thought was not “we were here” which would have grouped her with AJ at the location, but rather “he was [just] here”. The extra word “just” signals other thoughts are held by Kelly connected to timing/location. We will come back to this in a moment.
“He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.”
Next she makes three statements in the negative. The first - “He [didn’t] go anywhere” – causes problems for her narrative as the combination of “we were here on the porch” and “he didn’t go anywhere” won’t add up. If he didn’t go anywhere then he should still be there. The second -“he`s [not] a wanderer”- stands out as it tells us what he isn’t rather than what he is. It shows when thinking of her son the word “wanderer” is one which comes to her mind. Finally – “he [doesn’t] go anywhere” – follows the same formula and adds to the sensitivity of all the things he “doesn’t” do.
Returning to the earlier statement of -
“[He] was [just] [here]”
The simplest would be - “he was here” – but Kelly has included the word “just” in her language which has changed its meaning. “Just” reveals other thoughts are being held, and the word following it is “here” which speaks to location. If there is a “here” then we know there is a “there” as one cannot exist without the other. Consider if someone was just “here” - where were they before they arrived? Kelly told us –
[He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch. He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.
Where was AJ before he “was just here”? Wherever that was did he go back there and meet with foul play? What is the mothers internal dictionary meaning of “anywhere”? For him to have been abducted he would have to have been out of sight/mind of his caretakers.
Did Peter die? This blog used to transcribe videos and quote the revealing passages. Now you're just posting videos with no context that all? And this is the first post in over a month? Peter used to post daily.
This is great for comparison with other parents looking for missing children: Her focus is on the child, she appeals to the public, her grief is genuine, she talks in the present tense about him, she can describe what he was wearing very calmly, knowing how important that is if somebody sees him. She is 100% truthful. Fortunately, he was found alive and well after 3 days. I noted that she said he would never wander off, but apparently, that's what he did. Parents don't know their kids as well as they think sometimes, children do unpredictable things.
AJ was found in good condition with just a few scratches, which was unexpected for the length of time he was missing in rough terrain. Circumstances of his disappearance are still under investigation - Anthony was not picked up by thermal imaging, also unexpected. Apparently the family did not tell police about the Ute for two hours after they reported AJ missing.
It was the family friend who saw the Ute though? Mother was in the kitchen, father fixing the quad bike, friend stood up and saw the Ute when they raised the alarm.
AJ is non verbal so may not be able to help - it’s not stated whether the family uses sign language.
——
“We were surrounding the house” might be interesting as it sounds either combative or defensive. I wonder, was someone bothering them, or were they anticipating something? They are looking into AJ’s father, Anthony. Could “surrounding the house” be leakage - some type of collusion between the father and his best friend? The friend seems a bit shady, to me - maybe the mirrored glasses.
Maybe the mother knew or suspected where AJ was, or who had him, if someone did, and that he was relatively safe - otherwise why no concern expressed for his welfare? Maybe that could account for the soft language of “appreciate” too.
I'm only a pedestrian but the mother doesn't raise red flags. Her concern is "I just wanna find find my son, I need to find AJ" I believe her. However the man who substitutes her husband, (which in itself is a bit odd) raises several red flags. "[this boy] has never, i'm looking straight in face, he has never wondered off... okay? this is th- this is out of character for him." (is he blaming the child?)
"When i got up when they raise the alarm. i stood up and i see.. Ute which we put out a discription, let the police know we- let detective know.
There are also claims more crucial CCTV footage had 'gone missing' at the rural property with family friend Alan Hashem, who was at the property at the time AJ went missing, claiming that someone may have tampered with security cameras he had installed on a tree high above the remote bushland road outside the home.
Mr Hashem said footage was now missing during the four-hour window when AJ vanished.
'How did he leave, who did he leave with? Did anything sinister happen? These are questions that need to still be answered and we will not stop until we actually find the truth,' he said on Monday.
He also explained that the cameras set up in the area were installed high enough to make them near-impossible to tamper with, but somehow the crucial footage was missing.
'There's one key factor and this is probably the first time I actually mentioned this, I installed cameras on that post right there,' he told the Today show on Monday.
'There's footage missing, unexplained. (We have footage from) days before, days after, but not during the time.
'You know what's more alarming? We installed it so high you can't tamper with it and we had two mechanisms of storage - cloud storage and physical storage - and there's no data in that time slot.
'We provided the user name and password to the police, we provided them the actual original memory card. There's a lot of explaining to do.'
I’m interested in the friend’s positive introduction of AJ’s father, Anthony, as his best friend, because we probably don’t need to know that - “family friend” would do, if indeed he were a friend of the mother, too - but Kelly is “she” and “his wife” - so how are relations all round? Best friends sometimes take the attitude of the friend towards the friend’s spouse.
Possibly the mother knew or believed AJ was not in danger as she did not speak to his needs - the soft language of “appreciate” and, as Mike posted, the passive language of “he was taken” likely supports this.
I did, to begin, suspect maybe AJ was not going to be found, as the mother did not speak to his needs or ask for his return, despite claiming he was taken. Repetition of needing to find him, when he wouldn’t be nearby or easy to find if he had been taken in a vehicle (Ute), also raised a red flag.
“There’s a lot of explaining to do” - by whom? You wouldn’t need or be able to explain anything if you had no knowledge of how the relevant footage had gone missing - only those who had the username and password would have access to the footage. He does seem a bit shifty - as in why has he not gone home and minded his own business? Why was he beside Kelly in the interview - for support or as a minder - or other - just wanted to be on tv? If I was Kelly, I wouldn’t be having that guy over for lunch because “she” is the cat’s mother, and Kelly has a name.
"...her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were just preparing for lunch, uh - an-and they’ve been her for three months, this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay? This is - this is out of character for him."
There's a lot of sensitivity around what they were all doing when the boy disappeared. The need to explain why the bike had to be fixed; that they were "just" preparing for lunch (what else were they doing?)followed by stuttering; then the repeated insistence that the boy would never wander off.
Ok Alan Hashem Something is up with the camera situation. Did he eliminate something? If a key factor was there could be video evidence of where the little boy went.…That should have been “mentioned” and very early on. Especially for someone so vigilant speaking. “We were surrounding the house” When I got up when they “raised the alarm”. He installed the surveillance cameras. Is he family friend or bodyguard? Perhaps he did tell authorities and he’s now telling it to the reporter. Based on this statement, I would have some questions for him related to the "security" cameras.
"There's one key factor and this probably the first time I actually mentioned this, I installed cameras on that post right there” "There's footage missing, unexplained. (We have footage from) days before, days after, but not during the time.” "You know what's more alarming? We installed it so high you can't tamper with it and we had two mechanisms of storage, cloud storage and physical storage and there's no data in that time slot.” He wants to share this, close to him “key factor” in earnest as he said it’s the ONE, and FIRST time. He then weakens it by probably and mention.(as in casual and unimportant) And he inserts actually before mentioned (past tense)Thinking of what? Is he mentioning it for the first time or Has he told it to someone else? I believe him, he installed the cameras. When the cameras were installed he uses “I”. When the footage is missing though he uses “we”. Who’s we? Do they share the camera? Could that mean the footage wasn’t really “missing”? I also note that cameras (plural) was used with the "I" pronoun and it (singular) with the "we" pronoun. How many cameras are there? He says the one “key factor” is that he installed cameras on that post. Which would be true if they revealed something but the footage was missing (qualifies missing with unexplained, wasn’t yet asked) so how was their installation or even existence key? In fact, the missing footage came before he introduced the “more alarming” fact “we” installed (it) at a tamper proof height. So what does he think the one key factor is? He uses “we” installed (previously said “I”) where you can’t tamper with it. Was the camera tampered with? He asks a question and answers, is he talking to himself? He then reports what can’t happen, what you can’t do. Is that experiential memory, Did he tell us who tampered with the cameras? Or is he wondering how anyone could have tampered with it? He doesn’t tell what’s missing or say a time. Was all the “footage” missing from that whole day or only “during THE time”? What time? He could have said there is footage from a day before and a day after but there is no footage from Friday. Or from Friday at 11:30 [when AJ wandered off} Days went to time. The time. He used “the” before a time was introduced. Is there some sensitivity on the camera surrounding “the time”? Related or unrelated to the boy? And footage became data. When it became storage. Something changed, what was it?A google search says there is raw, logged and uncompressed footage. Raw data has no video processing baked in and has to be converted into video for viewing. There’s no data in that time slot. (Still doesn’t tell or say a time)(the time, that slot) Slot is some computer architecting term. We had (past tense) 2 ways of storing the "data". But said they have footage from days after? He may know something more about this camera(s)footage and he may be very knowledgable on the subject?
Kelly exaggerates; it is not physically possible for AJ to hold his mother’s hand “all the time” , or to smile “all day and all night”, or for them to always be together. At the time her son disappeared, they were, according to Kelly, on the porch, but according to the friend, Kelly was in the kitchen, so it was only AJ who was on the porch when he disappeared. Possibly Kelly left him on the porch for a few minutes while she was making lunch - obviously AJ didn’t need to hold her hand all the time, but Kelly needed to say that he did.
Is this Kelly’s verbal perception of reality? It maybe seems to Kelly that AJ constantly holds her hand and is awake all day and night, because he is autistic and he may be more demanding than her other children. How, though, can he also be “always happy” if he is awake all night - does he never grow tired, or frustrated, especially as he is non-verbal, fall over, get ill, have autistic meltdowns, or fight with his brothers?
I don’t understand how what she says is a positive linguistic disposition toward AJ. AJ’s attention towards her is not reciprocated towards him in her language - it sounds as if he wants her constant attention, and that he is awake all night - yet she also says he is always happy, placid, and a good boy. I don’t see how that could quite add up.
It’s interesting how Kelly says she is AJ’s universe. It does not really need stating, because if a mother is able to stay at home, generally toddlers will spend most of their time with their mothers - so it could be self-praise, or possibly also as an unconscious complaint by a weary mother, as with AJ smiling all day and all night. All day is one thing - realistically though, all night could not be so great.
I don’t know how often autistic toddlers, particularly boys, are described as “always happy”, “placid” and “good” - the description reminds of a puppy, like “good boy, AJ. “. “Placid” bothers me, because AJ is three. A contented baby might be described as placid, or a quiet natured older child, but it seems unlikely of a three year old, especially a boy.
I’d be happier if she’d said he was lively, non-stop, and great when he’s asleep, but maybe that would be a negative linguistic disposition? I don’t see how what she said was positive, it only sounds positive superficially.
I know the focus is on the friend - but I am still finding what the mother said interesting, not seeing how it can all work simultaneously. The mother did not describe AJ as lovely, or express any emotion toward him, she rather described his behaviours - it was the friend who described AJ as “the most loveliest boy”.
In this case like we have seen in many others a child has gone missing through neglect. In all the language one thing is missing – No one knew where he was. If a parent leaves a child unsupervised it allows for the possibility of something going wrong. A small child can fall and bang his head or choke on something he has put in his mouth in the space of a second, that’s all it takes. In life tragedy always seem to affect others, we read of it every day in the papers and are thankful it wasn’t our child or loved one who was involved. The odds are small, but unfortunately someone has to be a loser when tragedy strikes. Some people seem to be gamblers when it comes down to taking care of those they love.
Many times we see language used that is there to convince. Many times we wonder who it is the speaker is actually trying to convince. Is it us the listener or themselves?
The friend –
“We were [surrounding] the house, I was [sitting] on the hammock on the left side of the house, she was in the kitchen, her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were [just] preparing for lunch, uh – [an-and they’ve been here for three months], this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay?”
The friend and father outside and the mother in the kitchen. The friend said - “We were [surrounding] the house” – Note that neither he nor anyone else knows where the child was, but because the house was “surrounded” the child could not have got away. This tells us that the child was allowed to wander round the house unsupervised. He is saying it would have been impossible for him to escape without being seen. Two people surrounding a house?
“I was [sitting] on the hammock” – Tells us he wasn’t watching the child. Note the inclusion of “sitting” in regards to the hammock. He wasn’t on the hammock, but “sitting” on it. Perhaps he was lying on it snoozing? He later said he got up when they raised the alarm. He said – “When I got up when they raised the alarm - I s-stood up” – Note first he “got up” and then he “stood up” with stutter. He already told us “got up” so to include “stood up” isn’t needed and is there as storytelling. He wants to say he was watching, but he can’t as it would be lying so he has to do the best he can to make it sound like he/they were paying attention.
“her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed”
Anthony was busy fixing the quad bike, so who was watching the child? We know the friend wasn’t, and now that the father wasn’t.
“we were out here, we were [just] preparing for lunch, uh – [an-and they’ve been here for three months”] this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay?”
There another couple of reasons why the child wasn`t being supervised. He says - we were [just] preparing for lunch” – yet he told us he was “sitting” on the hammock and only got up when the alarm was raised. I don’t know how that constitutes preparing for lunch. He then introduces time into his statement as a way of using the past to try and support the present. He suggests the caretaking of the child has been conducted the same way for the last three months and he has never gone missing. A good analogy would be if you left your car parked on the street in front of your home with the keys in the ignition for three months and it wasn’t stolen. When the car does get stolen you then say “this is out of the ordinary, it has never happened before.” It avoids dealing with the issue of having left it vulnerable and exposed in the first place.
I can’t remember the McCann’s exact statement, but they were happy to justify their children being 50 metres away alone in an apartment after tragedy had struck. They had done it for days without a problem etc… Unfortunately the longer it’s done the higher the odds get of something going wrong.
Anyway, they are very lucky people. Hopefully they will learn by their mistakes.
Maybe the friend was meant to be keeping an eye on AJ as he was the one who was outside and apparently not busy.
If the Ute really had no business being there, they should have been worried enough to mention it early on, and that they didn’t would be suspicious. If really the Ute passing by was not remarkable and they had seen it before they may not have remembered or thought to mention it till they were really wracking their brains two hours later. So either it’s suspicious that they didn’t mention it for two hours, or they didn’t mention it for two hours because ithey didn’t find it suspicious - in which case, why does he go on about it as though it might be?
It’s interesting that AJ was in good condition and not found by thermal imaging. They are very fortunate he did not drown in that muddy creek.
What about Kelly “still driving around” , speaks to time - when did Kelly start driving around, and when did the chain break on Anthony’s quad bike? Did one or another adult take and hide AJ while the others were pre-occupied? I’m not yet convinced he just wandered off - Kelly said “he didn’t go anywhere”, and that he isn’t a wanderer - but maybe he is, now, or maybe, really, he was taken.
Hey Jude- you seem to be in full judgement mode rather than analyzing her words.
She is indeed frantic. She stresses he needs to be found. Her role isn’t to list of every item YOU think should be in a perfect mother list. She clearly states her priority is finding him. The “just” comes in response to “what’s going through your mind?” She doesn’t let the reporter steer her from her goal of finding him. “Just” implies another option, another thought, that he could be dead, but her maternal instinct won’t let her go there. Expected.
Your comments about “puppy,” her smiling all day and night, and “how attached he is” come across as petty, as if you aren’t listening to her but you have already judged her as bad. The friend brings up attached, the REPORTER asked her about inseparable, she answers it with the “holding hands” detail, which you then use against her as “victim blaming” and not focusing on “her attention to him”! That wasn’t what she was asked about!!! She answers a question about “what he’s like” by saying placid, good, happy, and you then you use your expertise on 3 year olds to cast doubt that she can describe her own son. He’s a puppy? You are judging, not listening. She says “find” 6 times, then you accuse her of not begging, of being soft in one of her, like 7 sentences pleading for finding him???
You: “ rather than beg for her baby’s safe return.”
She does!!
“ “I just wanna find my son” is not as committed a statement as would be “I want to find my son.”
You mean like her 5 previous statements?
“ Does Kelly smile and laugh all day and night, too, after holding AJ’s hand all day?”
WTH? Why are you so determined to make her the bad guy? That’s just snotty and irrelevant.
“ She asks for information, yet volunteers none which could be helpful”
Like unhesitatingly describe what he was wearing? She did!
You really should have gotten better at this by now. SMH!
I am listening to her, Red Meat - she doesn’t say AJ needs to be found, she addresses none oh his needs while missing. Maybe she knew he was safe and that his needs were being met. I don’t think either of them were frantic so much as trying to act that way.
Indeed red meat. I find everyone here is alway looking to put the parents under extreme scrutiny. I found myself feeling very sorry her and her husband. I found her sincere and wanting to find her son.
I’m looking at the language rather than scrutinising the parent, Red Meat, and Shan, though it may seem the same - and I find the mother exaggerates AJ’s devotion toward her - a young child’s “universe” is his or her caregiver, most often the mother, and as it’s not unusual it doesn’t need stating. Kelly, however, has a need to let us know something that most people would not question had she not said it. It’s also one-way. If she had followed it by saying AJ must be so scared, hungry and thirsty if he’s out in the woods, or distressed if he is with a stranger, it could explain the statement, but as she doesn’t so it seems like self-praise - it’s not useful information.
As AJ was presumably not holding his mother’s hand when he disappeared, he does not hold her hand “all the time”. He is unlikely to smile and laugh all day and all night, or she to be aware of it if he somehow did, because they both must sleep for some of the time. This is not to “scrutinise” because they are obvious contradictions. It’s reasonable to question why, in the dire circumstance, she would speak hyperbolically, rather than give a useful and accurate description.
Kelly asked for “information” rather than for her son.
I did not learn anything about AJ’s age, height, skin, hair or eye colour, length of his hair, from Kelly - eventually, and when asked, she described what he was wearing, but as thousands of toddlers are wearing the same, it’s not very helpful without other basic information, or without her showing a photograph. Why would she omit a useful description if she believed AJ had been taken by a stranger?
If her belief was that AJ had been abducted would she not answer the question about their relationship differently - that he’d be distressed without her, at least, because he is very “attached”? Rather she gives a sentimental type response about her being his universe, and his holding her hand all the time. How does this convey real belief that AJ has been taken by a stranger and that he could be in danger? It doesn’t - and she doesn’t say that is what she believes, only that he has been taken. As her language does not convey belief that AJ was in danger, and as he has been found in relatively good condition, I believe she knows or suspects who took him. Also, if she knows AJ didn’t leave of his own accord, “he didn’t go anywhere” - could be an embedded admission.
I do agree that the puppy remark was a bit judgy, but her three year old non-verbal son was missing and she found it a good time to announce that he is a “good boy”. He doesn’t need praise - no-one cares if he is a good boy, only that he is found safe.
It also occurred to me that happy, placid, smiling, “good boy” might have been meant by way of explanation as to why he wasn’t heard crying during the search - it’s unlikely he wouldn’t have cried or been heard. Even if it could explain that, it doesn’t help with how he wasn’t spotted with thermal imaging. Did they find a shoe, or shoes in those days, I wonder? - lost toddlers often lose their shoes.
I agree something’s not right. Maybe the child was hidden to “teach someone a lesson” if he had been left to his own devices. Maybe someone intended to take him away, changed their mind after a couple of days, left him near the home. I don’t believe he wandered away because Kelly nor the friend express any concern about where he could be, or for his basic needs - food, water, warmth, or shelter from the elements.
I still find it odd that none of them expressed concern about what AJ’s condition was, or his needs, especially considering he had been missing overnight. Maybe “l’m his universe” and “we’re always together” was meant to encompass all that.
32 comments:
Mother: Please, if you have any information, just give it to us, please, we need to find AJ. We really need to find him - he’s gone for one day now. I need him back, please any information-give it to us. I’d appreciate it so much, I need to find him please.
Reporter: It must be so tough for you, Kelly, and I’m so sorry you’re having to go through this -how are you feeling, what’s going through your head at the moment?
Mother. I just wanna find my son. I need to find AJ. Please anything, please give it to us, or I’d appreciate anything we need to find AJ now, please -
Reporter: And he was just here, he was in the back yard with you?
Mother: He was just here, we were here in the porch, he didn’t go anywhere. He’s not a wanderer, he doesn’t go anywhere.
Friend: We were surrounding the house, I was sitting on the hammock on the left side of the house, she was in the kitchen, her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were just preparing for lunch, uh - an-and they’ve been her for three months, this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay? This is - this is out of character for him. Yes, he-he’s on the spectrum of autism, but he’s the most loveliest boy you ever meet. And he’s attached to his mum, he’s always by his mum’s side.
Reporter: that’s what Alan was saying, Kelly, like, AJ was - you guys were inseparable, weren’t you? Tell us about your relationship.
Mother: I’m his universe. He holds my hand all day, all night, we’re together all the time.
Reporter: How out of character is it for him to wander off?
Friend: No.
Mother: no, never - never.
Reporter: Rumours are wide that he might have been taken. Can you tell me about that?
Mother: I think he’s been taken. He’s been taken. If he was around here I would have found him by now. I have searched the property how many times have we searched and I’m still driving around and I cannot find him. If he was here he’d be close to the property - he’s not here, I can’t find him.
Friend: We’re on six hundred and fifty acres, Uh Anthony and his wife, he own three hundred and thirty, I own three hundred and thirty, we’re at the end of his land and at the start of mine, there are no homes on the other side, there are no homes, there’s nothing there - there’s one or two houses. No car has any business to be on this road other than to go to these homes. So every car we know, we know the neighbours - we’ve invited over for barbees, we know them all personally, this is a small tight knit community with about two hundred and thirty homes.
So it’s just like something doesn’t stack up.
Friend: something does not stack up.
Mother: No.
Friend: Something does not stack up.
Mother: Something’s not right. Something not right.
Friend: When I got up when they raised the alarm - I s-stood up and I see a Ute which we put out a description, we’ve let the police know, we’ve let the detective know, put out - I saw it just driving along Yango Drive, which is a hundred metres from the house, driving - out - to Putty Road. One we didn’t see it enter, we see every car that enters, because it’s a dead end, there’s nowhere to go other than to three houses. One’s abandoned, and t-two houses are occupied, and both of those homes we know - the third property doesn’t have a house on it - we also own as well, right - we’re away from everything at the moment to try and be safe and secure and for this to happen on private property, on six hundred and fifty acreage, there’s - so many questions that need to be answered.
[comtinued]
Reporter: And Kelly, can you tell us a bit about AJ, you know, what he’s like as a person, you know.
Mother: AJ’s a happy boy. He’s always smiling and laughing all day all night, and he’s always happy. He’s placid. He’s such a good boy. He’s amazing.
Reporter: What was he wearing at the time?
Mother: He was wearing a grey hoody jumper, grey tracksuit pants and black shoes with red uh trimming on it.
AJ’s needs are not amongst the many needs his mother names. A mother of a missing child, whom she believed “taken”, would be expected to be frantic abiut his whereabouts, and whoever might have taken him, and why - to plead for his safe return, or for the abductor to leave him in a safe place where soon he would be found.
She asks for information, yet volunteers none which could be helpful. The use of “I’d appreciate it so much” is so soft in the circumstances. Why appreciate “information”, and “so much”, rather than beg for her baby’s safe return.
“I just wanna find my son” is not as committed a statement as would be “I want to find my son.”
She says she is AJ’s universe, rather than he is her universe, and that he always holds her hand; in describing him, that he is happy, placid and good.
If I didn’t know AJ was a three year old boy, I might mistake him for a missing puppy, but puppies don’t smile and laugh all night.
—-
Interesting how the friend gives a good introduction to AJ’s father, as Anthony, his best friend - Kelly, meanwhile, is just “she”, yet he’s giving the interview with her rather than the father. I wonder why he thinks we need to know about his property? What’s the sensitivity round him getting up, standing up, when they raised the alarm? Also, why does he say there are there no homes on the other side whilst also saying two or three houses are there, all in the same sentence? I thought he meant there are no homes, and described them as houses because they are not occupied - then he said two are occupied and described them as homes. Curious, if not as curious as “I”m looking you straight in the face” from behind mirrored sunglasses.
AJ probably didn’t smile and laugh all night - even if he did, this, with how “attached” he is to his mother, could be victim blaming.
Kelly is letting us know that she is a good mother in saying she is AJ’s universe, he holds her hand all the time, they are always together, he smiles and laughs all day and night, which sounds unlikely. Does Kelly smile and laugh all day and night, too, after holding AJ’s hand all day? She describes AJ’s attention towards her, rather than it being hers towards AJ, which makes me question if he craves attention without necessarily receiving it. Three year olds are not known for their placidity - it seems out of character for the age group, unless in front of a screen.
I transcribed the mothers opening statement -
Kelly: Please if you have any information just give to us please. We need to find AJ. We really need to find him. He`s gone for one day now, I need him back. Please any information, give it to us. I`d appreciate it so much I need to find him please.
Interviewer: It must be so tough for you Kelly and I`m so sorry you’re having to go through this. How are you feeling, what’s going through your head at moment?
Kelly: I just want to find my son. I need to find AJ. Please anything, please give it to us… or I appreciate anything. We need to find AJ now… Please
Initial statements from the mother are strong with the priority on finding her son. In the above transcript she uses the word “need” x6 in connection to finding AJ. Three fronted with pronoun “we” and three with the strong personal commitment of “I”. This shows her mind is focused on finding/getting her son back. Even when asked by the interviewer “How are you feeling, what’s going through your head at moment?” she maintains her commitment when she replies – “I just want to find my son”. That is all that matters to her, she doesn’t say she is tired, hungry etc… to her those things do not exist. Her thoughts are fixated on finding her son.
There are some statements made by the mother later and the family friend (who wore sunglasses all the way through the interview when not needed) spoken in the negative.
Kelly: [He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch. He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.
[He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch.
This statement starts with the pronoun “He” and speaks to location (here). Kelly changes it to “we” and gives the location as on the porch. Her first thought was not “we were here” which would have grouped her with AJ at the location, but rather “he was [just] here”. The extra word “just” signals other thoughts are held by Kelly connected to timing/location. We will come back to this in a moment.
“He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.”
Next she makes three statements in the negative. The first - “He [didn’t] go anywhere” – causes problems for her narrative as the combination of “we were here on the porch” and “he didn’t go anywhere” won’t add up. If he didn’t go anywhere then he should still be there. The second -“he`s [not] a wanderer”- stands out as it tells us what he isn’t rather than what he is. It shows when thinking of her son the word “wanderer” is one which comes to her mind. Finally – “he [doesn’t] go anywhere” – follows the same formula and adds to the sensitivity of all the things he “doesn’t” do.
Returning to the earlier statement of -
“[He] was [just] [here]”
The simplest would be - “he was here” – but Kelly has included the word “just” in her language which has changed its meaning. “Just” reveals other thoughts are being held, and the word following it is “here” which speaks to location. If there is a “here” then we know there is a “there” as one cannot exist without the other. Consider if someone was just “here” - where were they before they arrived? Kelly told us –
[He] was [just] here, [we] were here on the porch. He [didn’t] go anywhere, he`s [not] a wanderer, he [doesn’t] go anywhere.
Where was AJ before he “was just here”? Wherever that was did he go back there and meet with foul play? What is the mothers internal dictionary meaning of “anywhere”? For him to have been abducted he would have to have been out of sight/mind of his caretakers.
Adrian.
Did Peter die? This blog used to transcribe videos and quote the revealing passages. Now you're just posting videos with no context that all? And this is the first post in over a month? Peter used to post daily.
They just found him but the question is how he wound up where he was found.
This is great for comparison with other parents looking for missing children: Her focus is on the child, she appeals to the public, her grief is genuine, she talks in the present tense about him, she can describe what he was wearing very calmly, knowing how important that is if somebody sees him. She is 100% truthful. Fortunately, he was found alive and well after 3 days.
I noted that she said he would never wander off, but apparently, that's what he did. Parents don't know their kids as well as they think sometimes, children do unpredictable things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfgwBBjB5vI
—-
AJ was found in good condition with just a few scratches, which was unexpected for the length of time he was missing in rough terrain. Circumstances of his disappearance are still under investigation - Anthony was not picked up by thermal imaging, also unexpected. Apparently the family did not tell police about the Ute for two hours after they reported AJ missing.
It was the family friend who saw the Ute though? Mother was in the kitchen, father fixing the quad bike, friend stood up and saw the Ute when they raised the alarm.
AJ is non verbal so may not be able to help - it’s not stated whether the family uses sign language.
——
“We were surrounding the house” might be interesting as it sounds either combative or defensive. I wonder, was someone bothering them, or were they anticipating something? They are looking into AJ’s father, Anthony. Could “surrounding the house” be leakage - some type of collusion between the father and his best friend? The friend seems a bit shady, to me - maybe the mirrored glasses.
Maybe the mother knew or suspected where AJ was, or who had him, if someone did, and that he was relatively safe - otherwise why no concern expressed for his welfare? Maybe that could account for the soft language of “appreciate” too.
"he was taken" refuses to identify takers. Passive language
I'm only a pedestrian but the mother doesn't raise red flags. Her concern is "I just wanna find find my son, I need to find AJ" I believe her.
However the man who substitutes her husband, (which in itself is a bit odd) raises several red flags.
"[this boy] has never, i'm looking straight in face, he has never wondered off...
okay? this is th- this is out of character for him." (is he blaming the child?)
"When i got up when they raise the alarm. i stood up and i see.. Ute which we put out a discription, let the police know we- let detective know.
The guy with the sunglasses on in the video is called Alan Hashem. There are some interesting quotes from him here –
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9962655/Police-probe-missing-NSW-toddler-AJ-3-kidnapped-bush.html
From the article -
There are also claims more crucial CCTV footage had 'gone missing' at the rural property with family friend Alan Hashem, who was at the property at the time AJ went missing, claiming that someone may have tampered with security cameras he had installed on a tree high above the remote bushland road outside the home.
Mr Hashem said footage was now missing during the four-hour window when AJ vanished.
'How did he leave, who did he leave with? Did anything sinister happen? These are questions that need to still be answered and we will not stop until we actually find the truth,' he said on Monday.
He also explained that the cameras set up in the area were installed high enough to make them near-impossible to tamper with, but somehow the crucial footage was missing.
'There's one key factor and this is probably the first time I actually mentioned this, I installed cameras on that post right there,' he told the Today show on Monday.
'There's footage missing, unexplained. (We have footage from) days before, days after, but not during the time.
'You know what's more alarming? We installed it so high you can't tamper with it and we had two mechanisms of storage - cloud storage and physical storage - and there's no data in that time slot.
'We provided the user name and password to the police, we provided them the actual original memory card. There's a lot of explaining to do.'
Interesting stuff,
Adrian.
I’m interested in the friend’s positive introduction of AJ’s father, Anthony, as his best friend, because we probably don’t need to know that - “family friend” would do, if indeed he were a friend of the mother, too - but Kelly is “she” and “his wife” - so how are relations all round? Best friends sometimes take the attitude of the friend towards the friend’s spouse.
Possibly the mother knew or believed AJ was not in danger as she did not speak to his needs - the soft language of “appreciate” and, as Mike posted, the passive language of “he was taken” likely supports this.
I did, to begin, suspect maybe AJ was not going to be found, as the mother did not speak to his needs or ask for his return, despite claiming he was taken. Repetition of needing to find him, when he wouldn’t be nearby or easy to find if he had been taken in a vehicle (Ute), also raised a red flag.
“There’s a lot of explaining to do” - by whom? You wouldn’t need or be able to explain anything if you had no knowledge of how the relevant footage had gone missing - only those who had the username and password would have access to the footage. He does seem a bit shifty - as in why has he not gone home and minded his own business? Why was he beside Kelly in the interview - for support or as a minder - or other - just wanted to be on tv? If I was Kelly, I wouldn’t be having that guy over for lunch because “she” is the cat’s mother, and Kelly has a name.
"...her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were just preparing for lunch, uh - an-and they’ve been her for three months, this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay? This is - this is out of character for him."
There's a lot of sensitivity around what they were all doing when the boy disappeared. The need to explain why the bike had to be fixed; that they were "just" preparing for lunch (what else were they doing?)followed by stuttering; then the repeated insistence that the boy would never wander off.
Ok Alan Hashem
Something is up with the camera situation. Did he eliminate something?
If a key factor was there could be video evidence of where the little boy went.…That should have been “mentioned” and very early on. Especially for someone so vigilant speaking. “We were surrounding the house” When I got up when they “raised the alarm”. He installed the surveillance cameras. Is he family friend or bodyguard? Perhaps he did tell authorities and he’s now telling it to the reporter. Based on this statement, I would have some questions for him related to the "security" cameras.
"There's one key factor and this probably the first time I actually mentioned this, I installed cameras on that post right there”
"There's footage missing, unexplained. (We have footage from) days before, days after, but not during the time.”
"You know what's more alarming? We installed it so high you can't tamper with it and we had two mechanisms of storage, cloud storage and physical storage and there's no data in that time slot.”
He wants to share this, close to him “key factor” in earnest as he said it’s the ONE, and FIRST time. He then weakens it by probably and mention.(as in casual and unimportant) And he inserts actually before mentioned (past tense)Thinking of what? Is he mentioning it for the first time or Has he told it to someone else?
I believe him, he installed the cameras. When the cameras were installed he uses “I”. When the footage is missing though he uses “we”. Who’s we? Do they share the camera? Could that mean the footage wasn’t really “missing”? I also note that cameras (plural) was used with the "I" pronoun and it (singular) with the "we" pronoun. How many cameras are there?
He says the one “key factor” is that he installed cameras on that post. Which would be true if they revealed something but the footage was missing (qualifies missing with unexplained, wasn’t yet asked) so how was their installation or even existence key? In fact, the missing footage came before he introduced the “more alarming” fact “we” installed (it) at a tamper proof height. So what does he think the one key factor is?
He uses “we” installed (previously said “I”) where you can’t tamper with it. Was the camera tampered with? He asks a question and answers, is he talking to himself? He then reports what can’t happen, what you can’t do. Is that experiential memory, Did he tell us who tampered with the cameras? Or is he wondering how anyone could have tampered with it? He doesn’t tell what’s missing or say a time. Was all the “footage” missing from that whole day or only “during THE time”? What time?
He could have said there is footage from a day before and a day after but there is no footage from Friday. Or from Friday at 11:30 [when AJ wandered off} Days went to time. The time. He used “the” before a time was introduced. Is there some sensitivity on the camera surrounding “the time”? Related or unrelated to the boy?
And footage became data. When it became storage. Something changed, what was it?A google search says there is raw, logged and uncompressed footage.
Raw data has no video processing baked in and has to be converted into video for viewing. There’s no data in that time slot. (Still doesn’t tell or say a time)(the time, that slot) Slot is some computer architecting term. We had (past tense) 2 ways of storing the "data". But said they have footage from days after?
He may know something more about this camera(s)footage and he may be very knowledgable on the subject?
Kelly exaggerates; it is not physically possible for AJ to hold his mother’s hand “all the time” , or to smile “all day and all night”, or for them to always be together. At the time her son disappeared, they were, according to Kelly, on the porch, but according to the friend, Kelly was in the kitchen, so it was only AJ who was on the porch when he disappeared. Possibly Kelly left him on the porch for a few minutes while she was making lunch - obviously AJ didn’t need to hold her hand all the time, but Kelly needed to say that he did.
Is this Kelly’s verbal perception of reality? It maybe seems to Kelly that AJ constantly holds her hand and is awake all day and night, because he is autistic and he may be more demanding than her other children. How, though, can he also be “always happy” if he is awake all night - does he never grow tired, or frustrated, especially as he is non-verbal, fall over, get ill, have autistic meltdowns, or fight with his brothers?
I don’t understand how what she says is a positive linguistic disposition toward AJ. AJ’s attention towards her is not reciprocated towards him in her language - it sounds as if he wants her constant attention, and that he is awake all night - yet she also says he is always happy, placid, and a good boy. I don’t see how that could quite add up.
It’s interesting how Kelly says she is AJ’s universe. It does not really need stating, because if a mother is able to stay at home, generally toddlers will spend most of their time with their mothers - so it could be self-praise, or possibly also as an unconscious complaint by a weary mother, as with AJ smiling all day and all night. All day is one thing - realistically though, all night could not be so great.
I don’t know how often autistic toddlers, particularly boys, are described as “always happy”, “placid” and “good” - the description reminds of a puppy, like “good boy, AJ. “. “Placid” bothers me, because AJ is three. A contented baby might be described as placid, or a quiet natured older child, but it seems unlikely of a three year old, especially a boy.
I’d be happier if she’d said he was lively, non-stop, and great when he’s asleep, but maybe that would be a negative linguistic disposition? I don’t see how what she said was positive, it only sounds positive superficially.
I know the focus is on the friend - but I am still finding what the mother said interesting, not seeing how it can all work simultaneously. The mother did not describe AJ as lovely, or express any emotion toward him, she rather described his behaviours - it was the friend who described AJ as “the most loveliest boy”.
In this case like we have seen in many others a child has gone missing through neglect. In all the language one thing is missing – No one knew where he was. If a parent leaves a child unsupervised it allows for the possibility of something going wrong. A small child can fall and bang his head or choke on something he has put in his mouth in the space of a second, that’s all it takes. In life tragedy always seem to affect others, we read of it every day in the papers and are thankful it wasn’t our child or loved one who was involved. The odds are small, but unfortunately someone has to be a loser when tragedy strikes. Some people seem to be gamblers when it comes down to taking care of those they love.
Many times we see language used that is there to convince. Many times we wonder who it is the speaker is actually trying to convince. Is it us the listener or themselves?
The friend –
“We were [surrounding] the house, I was [sitting] on the hammock on the left side of the house, she was in the kitchen, her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed, the chain fell off - we were out here, we were [just] preparing for lunch, uh – [an-and they’ve been here for three months], this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay?”
The friend and father outside and the mother in the kitchen. The friend said - “We were [surrounding] the house” – Note that neither he nor anyone else knows where the child was, but because the house was “surrounded” the child could not have got away. This tells us that the child was allowed to wander round the house unsupervised. He is saying it would have been impossible for him to escape without being seen. Two people surrounding a house?
“I was [sitting] on the hammock” – Tells us he wasn’t watching the child. Note the inclusion of “sitting” in regards to the hammock. He wasn’t on the hammock, but “sitting” on it. Perhaps he was lying on it snoozing? He later said he got up when they raised the alarm. He said – “When I got up when they raised the alarm - I s-stood up” – Note first he “got up” and then he “stood up” with stutter. He already told us “got up” so to include “stood up” isn’t needed and is there as storytelling. He wants to say he was watching, but he can’t as it would be lying so he has to do the best he can to make it sound like he/they were paying attention.
“her husband Anthony, who’s also my best friend, um was just getting the - uh quad bike fixed”
Anthony was busy fixing the quad bike, so who was watching the child? We know the friend wasn’t, and now that the father wasn’t.
“we were out here, we were [just] preparing for lunch, uh – [an-and they’ve been here for three months”] this boy has never - I’m looking at you straight in the face he has never - wandered off. Okay?”
There another couple of reasons why the child wasn`t being supervised. He says - we were [just] preparing for lunch” – yet he told us he was “sitting” on the hammock and only got up when the alarm was raised. I don’t know how that constitutes preparing for lunch. He then introduces time into his statement as a way of using the past to try and support the present. He suggests the caretaking of the child has been conducted the same way for the last three months and he has never gone missing. A good analogy would be if you left your car parked on the street in front of your home with the keys in the ignition for three months and it wasn’t stolen. When the car does get stolen you then say “this is out of the ordinary, it has never happened before.” It avoids dealing with the issue of having left it vulnerable and exposed in the first place.
I can’t remember the McCann’s exact statement, but they were happy to justify their children being 50 metres away alone in an apartment after tragedy had struck. They had done it for days without a problem etc… Unfortunately the longer it’s done the higher the odds get of something going wrong.
Anyway, they are very lucky people. Hopefully they will learn by their mistakes.
Adrian.
Maybe the friend was meant to be keeping an eye on AJ as he was the one who was outside and apparently not busy.
If the Ute really had no business being there, they should have been worried enough to mention it early on, and that they didn’t would be suspicious. If really the Ute passing by was not remarkable and they had seen it before they may not have remembered or thought to mention it till they were really wracking their brains two hours later. So either it’s suspicious that they didn’t mention it for two hours, or they didn’t mention it for two hours because ithey didn’t find it suspicious - in which case, why does he go on about it as though it might be?
It’s interesting that AJ was in good condition and not found by thermal imaging. They are very fortunate he did not drown in that muddy creek.
What about Kelly “still driving around” , speaks to time - when did Kelly start driving around, and when did the chain break on Anthony’s quad bike? Did one or another adult take and hide AJ while the others were pre-occupied? I’m not yet convinced he just wandered off - Kelly said “he didn’t go anywhere”, and that he isn’t a wanderer - but maybe he is, now, or maybe, really, he was taken.
Hey Jude- you seem to be in full judgement mode rather than analyzing her words.
She is indeed frantic. She stresses he needs to be found. Her role isn’t to list of every item YOU think should be in a perfect mother list. She clearly states her priority is finding him. The “just” comes in response to “what’s going through your mind?” She doesn’t let the reporter steer her from her goal of finding him. “Just” implies another option, another thought, that he could be dead, but her maternal instinct won’t let her go there. Expected.
Your comments about “puppy,” her smiling all day and night, and “how attached he is” come across as petty, as if you aren’t listening to her but you have already judged her as bad. The friend brings up attached, the REPORTER asked her about inseparable, she answers it with the “holding hands” detail, which you then use against her as “victim blaming” and not focusing on “her attention to him”! That wasn’t what she was asked about!!! She answers a question about “what he’s like” by saying placid, good, happy, and you then you use your expertise on 3 year olds to cast doubt that she can describe her own son. He’s a puppy? You are judging, not listening. She says “find” 6 times, then you accuse her of not begging, of being soft in one of her, like 7 sentences pleading for finding him???
You: “ rather than beg for her baby’s safe return.”
She does!!
“ “I just wanna find my son” is not as committed a statement as would be “I want to find my son.”
You mean like her 5 previous statements?
“ Does Kelly smile and laugh all day and night, too, after holding AJ’s hand all day?”
WTH? Why are you so determined to make her the bad guy? That’s just snotty and irrelevant.
“ She asks for information, yet volunteers none which could be helpful”
Like unhesitatingly describe what he was wearing? She did!
You really should have gotten better at this by now. SMH!
I consider all conflicting thoughts within comments. There may be a "scent" of distraction lingering over her statements.
I am listening to her, Red Meat - she doesn’t say AJ needs to be found, she addresses none oh his needs while missing. Maybe she knew he was safe and that his needs were being met. I don’t think either of them were frantic so much as trying to act that way.
Indeed red meat. I find everyone here is alway looking to put the parents under extreme scrutiny. I found myself feeling very sorry her and her husband. I found her sincere and wanting to find her son.
I’m looking at the language rather than scrutinising the parent, Red Meat, and Shan, though it may seem the same - and I find the mother exaggerates AJ’s devotion toward her - a young child’s “universe” is his or her caregiver, most often the mother, and as it’s not unusual it doesn’t need stating. Kelly, however, has a need to let us know something that most people would not question had she not said it. It’s also one-way. If she had followed it by saying AJ must be so scared, hungry and thirsty if he’s out in the woods, or distressed if he is with a stranger, it could explain the statement, but as she doesn’t so it seems like self-praise - it’s not useful information.
As AJ was presumably not holding his mother’s hand when he disappeared, he does not hold her hand “all the time”. He is unlikely to smile and laugh all day and all night, or she to be aware of it if he somehow did, because they both must sleep for some of the time. This is not to “scrutinise” because they are obvious contradictions. It’s reasonable to question why, in the dire circumstance, she would speak hyperbolically, rather than give a useful and accurate description.
Kelly asked for “information” rather than for her son.
I did not learn anything about AJ’s age, height, skin, hair or eye colour, length of his hair, from Kelly - eventually, and when asked, she described what he was wearing, but as thousands of toddlers are wearing the same, it’s not very helpful without other basic information, or without her showing a photograph. Why would she omit a useful description if she believed AJ had been taken by a stranger?
If her belief was that AJ had been abducted would she not answer the question about their relationship differently - that he’d be distressed without her, at least, because he is very “attached”? Rather she gives a sentimental type response about her being his universe, and his holding her hand all the time. How does this convey real belief that AJ has been taken by a stranger and that he could be in danger? It doesn’t - and she doesn’t say that is what she believes, only that he has been taken. As her language does not convey belief that AJ was in danger, and as he has been found in relatively good condition, I believe she knows or suspects who took him. Also, if she knows AJ didn’t leave of his own accord, “he didn’t go anywhere” - could be an embedded admission.
I do agree that the puppy remark was a bit judgy, but her three year old non-verbal son was missing and she found it a good time to announce that he is a “good boy”. He doesn’t need praise - no-one cares if he is a good boy, only that he is found safe.
It also occurred to me that happy, placid, smiling, “good boy” might have been meant by way of explanation as to why he wasn’t heard crying during the search - it’s unlikely he wouldn’t have cried or been heard. Even if it could explain that, it doesn’t help with how he wasn’t spotted with thermal imaging. Did they find a shoe, or shoes in those days, I wonder? - lost toddlers often lose their shoes.
I agree something’s not right. Maybe the child was hidden to “teach someone a lesson” if he had been left to his own devices. Maybe someone intended to take him away, changed their mind after a couple of days, left him near the home. I don’t believe he wandered away because Kelly nor the friend express any concern about where he could be, or for his basic needs - food, water, warmth, or shelter from the elements.
Context is key.
Non verbal and does not answer to his name. Mothers like this are overwhelmed and hyperbole is expected.
Peter
I should try being non-verbal. :-/.
Hey Jude- I was harsh in my comments. I apologize.
No need, Red Meat, you’re fine.
I still find it odd that none of them expressed concern about what AJ’s condition was, or his needs, especially considering he had been missing overnight. Maybe “l’m his universe” and “we’re always together” was meant to encompass all that.
Post a Comment