|Pedophile? Statement Analysis gets to the truth.|
Pete Townsend was one of many thousands who were caught in child pornography by using credit cards to purchase the illegal material. When police said that a famous rock star was among the caught, he came out with this statement. Statement Analysis is in bold type.
Is Pete Townsend truthful? Statement Analysis finds out.
I am not a paedophile.
Note that this is strong and it is in the present tense with the verb "am." This is not to say "I wasn't a pedophile" or "I did not engage in child porn."
His first statement is in the negative. First statements are always important and when it is in the negative, it is doubly important. Think: Jerry Sandusky. He may not, currently, consider himself a pedophile, but he engaged in pedophilia activities.
I have never entered chat rooms on the internet to converse with children.
1. Please note that "never" is not to be interpreted as "did not". Please see past articles on the word "never", as it is an unreliable denial.
2. Please note what he is denying: he never entered a chat room with the intention ("to") converse with children. This is not to say that it did not happen, only that he didn't go into the chat room "to" do this. By entering this statement, it should cause police to search what chat rooms he did enter that were identified as chat rooms for those interested in sexual discussion to or about children.
3. He makes this sentence very important by not only having it in the beginning (after sentence one) but also in the negative. By introducing chat rooms, he doesn't tell us which rooms, but only that he did not intend to converse "with" children, but not "about" children.
This is a strong indication that he entered chat rooms and likely engaged in conversations with pedophiles. To enter a chat room, he would not only need to know where it is located, but would know the title, or topic of the chat.
I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the internet.
He has been "shocked" about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images. This is likely where he found the chat room referenced above, and where he found the site to pay for downloads. By "explosion" he may mean "volume".
Ask yourself: how many paedophilic images have you seen online that "advertises" for pedophiles? The advertisements have "exploded" according to the subject, meaning that they are, according to his language:
"Advertisements" for pedophiles, and they are "images"
This means that a pedophile website is advertising by using its images.
Since there is an "explosion" of them, it is likely that the average internet user has been bombarded with them.
I did not see one today.
I did not see one yesterday.
Each morning, like I used to read the newspaper, I read online news stories. I am bombarded with ads about many things. Car ads have "exploded" everywhere.
I did not see a site advertising child pornography today, nor on any day that I have been online, since 1994.
I have asked others who have all answered the same thing. They have not seen a single pedophile advertisement.
We have seen ads featuring children which were inappropriate, but these were for toothpaste, or yogurt, and so on. This is not what he said. I will not interpret his words. I listen to what he said.
I did not see a child pornographic website advertising on the internet from 1994 until today. I have never seen a child pornographic website advertising, nor a chat room for pedophiles.
I believe, therefore, that one would have to deliberately search for one to find one.
Pete Townsend is lying. This is why the sensitivity indicators are present. Please take special note of "blue" coloring as the highest level of sensitivity.
I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years.
I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six-and-a-half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time.
Note "believe" is a weak assertion. Please see the previous article for what he says about being molested, including a young girl and an uncle, and a rape every week.
Please note that being a victim of childhood sexual abuse does not give one a license to engage in child pornography.
I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows - particularly in Tommy.
A truthful person can only report what is remembered.
Some of the things I have seen on the internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year,
Note that the things he has seen on the internet informed his book, but he does not say informed "him" which means that he is separating himself from his "book." He says "I am not a pedophile." Is his book a "pedophile"? This is how inappropriate such distancing language is, weakening his original assertion. We don't inform books; we inform people, who write books.
and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.
Here we have the highest level of sensitivity in our "blues"
Note the framing of his own words on having "compulsions" which he allows for.
Please note that he has "anger" and even "vengeance", which should show itself in the language.
Please note that instead of the anger towards the perverts, he calls them "mentally ill" and he calls them "people", which is plural for "persons."
Those of whom he has "anger" (emotion) and "vengeance" (to carry out the anger) are only "mentally ill people"
Please note that in today's news release, he reports what he did as "insane"; which is to say, "mentally ill."
Will he continue with the soft language towards the perverts calling them "people"?
I predicted many years ago that what has become the internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people.
Here he believes that it is the internet, itself, that has subverted, perverted and destroyed: "decent people." Does he consider this the reason for his pedophilia, or was it that a 9 year old girl abused him, or was it every week he was raped by an "uncle"?
Please note that these people are "decent" but that they have been affected by the internet.
The soft language continues. He doesn't even use "those" people, employing distancing language.
This contradicts the use of the language of "anger" and especially of "vengeance." He has called himself "insane" and is linking himself to the people who are victims of the internet.
I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know,
We would want to ask him, since downloading images of children exploited in sex, what other duty parts exist. We might fear the answer.
to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.
Note his quest to be seen as a "vigilante"; that is, one who takes the law into his own hands and administers justice, outside the law. With his anger, we would expect action, therefore, against the bad guys, of whom he can only bring himself to call "mentally ill people." I can think of a lot of bad words to call pedophiles and those who traffic in it and "mentally ill people" is a lot nicer than the words I can list.
Next, in order to believe that he did this for the purpose of research, you must enter his language and believe that the professional organizations know nothing about child pornography and that he, rock star, knows more and can inform Scotland Yard on his findings.
I can tell you this from experience: investigators fight each other to avoid seeing child porn images: No one wants to do it. They are often sent to a specialist for forensic evaluation, with most investigators only being told of their existence and not being forced to see them.
Note he lists three organizations. Note that the organization with the power to arrest him is reported last.
To believe him, you must presuppose that the professionals need his help.
Note the change to only "pornographic" industry, not child porn.
Note that his tool of proof would be to spend even more money on images.
He "helped" organizations who seek to block access to child pornography by accessing child pornography.
He "helped" stop the banks making money by spending money.
He "helped" Scotland Yard, who investigates child porn, by engaging in child porngraphy.
That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not.
Note distancing language associated with what is legal and what is illegal. Note that legal comes frist.
I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.
Note that this is something he does not "want", present tense.
Have you ever said that you don't want child pornography available on the internet? It is something that goes unsaid for most because they do not encounter it.
Note the additional words "at any time" which shows his own need for emphasis.
On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.
Here he addresses "one occasion" but does not say that there were others. Please note that the additional words give him away:
The site he entered "advertised" child porn. He paid to enter the site.
If a site advertises guitars and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find inside the site?
If a site advertises sail boats and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find once you have paid and entered the site?
If a site advertises baseball news stories for the "insider" who wants to hear what the pros are saying, and you had to pay to enter. Once you pay, what would you expect to encounter?
When you enter a bathroom, do you expect an orchestra to be waiting for you?
When you enter a doctor's office, do you expect to see a football team practicing?
He entered a site that advertised child pornography. He had to find a site that advertises child pornography, which is illegal. This is why we do not find child pornography advertisements splashed anywhere. It is why I have not seen a site advertising child pornography from 1994's first day on line to today.
I did this purely to see what was there.
Deception indicated. Here we use the highest level of sensitivity (blue) as it shows "why" he entered the site via explanation.
Note to Pete Townsend: When you searched to find the site that advertised child pornography, we knew your intention.
Note the word "purely" enters his vocabulary.
I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.
He called his lawyer. This is what people do when they commit a crime and panic at the fear of being caught. He likely gave his credit card knowing how "insane" it is, something impulsively done, and now is frightened that his name can be picked up.
He describes it as "spoke informally"; that is, without payment as a client. This may have proven a mistake if attorney-client privilege is not claimed later.
He called his lawyer, but not Scotland Yard.
Note that "a" friend is not "my friend" and is a low form of reference for friendships. The lawyer likely classifies the relationship differently.
I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse.
He only "hopes" that we will be "able" (meaning it will be difficult) for us to "see" that he is "sincerely disturbed." Of this, we have no doubt.
He first said that his purpose was to help organizations, but here, after saying "I am sincerely disturbed" he says his purpose to help individuals.
Please note that his helping organizations, like law enforcement, his help did not include calling them with his "research."
The perverts are "people" and "mentally ill people" and "decent people" in his language, even though he wants us to see him as "angry" and going to take "vigilante" "vengeance" against them.
It does not fit.
In his words, pedophiles are "people", "decent people" and are mentally ill. He uses the word "insane" about himself downloading child pornography with his credit card.
Pete Townsend is a pedophile; that is, one who is sexually aroused by the sexual abuse of children.
He wil make even more money now, via selling his book, about lying about pedophilia because people love his music and don't care about the child victims in this. It is why the doctor who overdosed Michael Jackson was vilified far more by television hosts than the child molester himself.
Our generation will be remembered for such folly.