Saturday, October 4, 2014

Sexual Assault Statement

We look for a subject to guide us.  We look for an innocent subject to tell us he did not do it.  We note where one begins a statement as critical, and often the reason for writing.

This man is accused of sexually assaulting his porn-star girlfriend after allegedly finding her in bed with another man.



Apple said...

Example of truthful parents. Listen how many times thry use Hannah's name. This video is difficult to watch.

Anonymous said...

He did beat her. Googled the pics-rough looking though he may not have hit her face too much. What's amazing is his complete denial. Even more amazing is her willingness to get back together with him.

Not sure if she was the porn star, though. Something about a tattoo expo. He did beat up a friend at a porn industry party and was attacked by several guests.

He's a repeat abuser. And, being a belted martial arts fighter, he could be charged as if he'd shot them.

She claimed they broke up in May. Later he returned, at his own discretion, and took over. Perhaps he had a house key from when they were on good terms and didn't expect to see him again.They were both dressed when he broke in.

Crime scene photos are mentioned. Doesn't sound good.

In Texas it would be called a "crime of passion?" Maybe that is why Texans are so passionate about guns.

All I get is his disbelief that he should be held accountable for his actions.

Anonymous said...

After Googling some more, I don't think statement analysis could possibly be employed. It's definitely guilt by association!

The recipient of the attack, porn stars roomy, was a reality show punk and his co-star butchered his love bug and stuffed her in some luggage or something.

The photos must have been taken promptly as bruising would be worse over time I think.

It's very disconcerting. My muscles in my arm started hurting and I had a wild urge to make sure all the doors were bolted. I've been watching the watchers that watch my neighbors and they have children. It takes them 4 minutes to steal their mail and walk to the Texans and 4 minutes back. I think I saw one photographing the fence at the side. It's either them are the research team next door who do the same. They stage the mail at another location like the abduction of druggies who try to confuse the crime scene when they run those kidnapping things.

Wow! I may need a tranquiler gun.

Anonymous said...

I am putting my trash out. Here's an itemized list so you don't have to break your back and my fence post in the name of transparency:
Box of peanut butter crackers
Betty Crocker frosting
eggshells (not the goddess of infertility)
cellophane wrappers
container for microwavable chicken stir-fry
coffee grounds
used tissues
toilet paper core
envelopes (contains no names)
mayonnaise jar
milk jug
tuna cans
rotten vegetables

Anonymous said...

I forgot:
egg carton
hot dog wrapper and sack from Sonic
Styrofoam cup

Anonymous said...

And,Dog crap

Tania Cadogan said...

He went there to surprise her.

He went into her bedroom.

Why did he not make his presence known by knocking on the front door making his presence known?
It would still have been a surprise.
Why, once in the house did he not make his presence known?
Again it would have been a surprise.

If he made no attempt to make his presence known why was he there?
Was there there any indication she or anyone else was in the house?

Why did he go to the bedroom if he was going to surprise her and help her set up her booth?

What time was this?
If anyone came into my bedroom who was unexpected and uninvited you can be darn sure i would go on the attack.

He says he dunno if they heard him or not ( if he had kncoked and called out they would have.
If he sneaked in they wouldn't have.

He plauys the victim card because the guy ambushed him when he went into the bedroom.
Of course a guy will ambush another guy coming inot his girlfriends bedroom uninited and unexpectedly.

He writes he hopes the inconsistencies in their stories and SOME of the crime scene evidence will be enough to convince a jury.

HOPES rather than knows?
SOME rather than ALL?
Clearly he knows there is crime scene evidence that will prove his guilt.

It is interesting that further down his letter he writes that "This time i really don't deserve it, not even a little bit!"
I would ask about the times when he did deserve it.
Were those situations the same as the charges he is facing now?

Here he gives his motive and an admission
Even if i wasn't ambushed, they still would have got what they deserved. In texas you can have shot them both and got off with (scott?)with that "passion crime" shit. I can only speculate on how'd i would have reacted if i had only caught them in bed

he states his intent was to catch them in bed and that he would have reacted. Since he introduces shot them and crime of passion he tells us what he would have done and claimed.

He makes no reliable denial of any of the charges he faces such as i did not break into the house in an attempt to catch them in bed and attempt to murder them, i did not break into the house. i did not ... you get the drift.

If he can;t make a reliable denial, i can;t do it for him.

WQhat is also clear is he has anger issues and is pissed because the dude stopped him doing whatever it was he was going to do.

Anonymous said...

'...had only caught them in bed.'

Sounds like that is what he was hoping to do. Good excuse for a thrill kill.

LisaB said...

Why is there a huge blank square where the article should be? I checked this on 3 devices before asking...

Buckley said...

Did you click on the link at the top?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic BBM

British businessman Shrien Dewani has formally pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife on their honeymoon in South Africa in 2010.

Mr Dewani, from Bristol, is accused of hiring a hitman to kill his wife Anni.

The couple were held at gunpoint while being driven in a taxi through Gugulethu township near Cape Town.

Mr Dewani, 34, told Western Cape Crown Court in a written statement that his "whole world came crashing down" when his wife was found killed.

The businessman also revealed to the court that he is bisexual.
'Angry disagreement'

Mr Dewani faces five charges including murder and lying about the circumstances of Swedish national Anni's death.

Prosecutors argue that Mr Dewani conspired with Cape Town residents Zola Tongo, Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Xolile Mngeni to kill his wife.

The court heard forensic evidence that the fatal shot was delivered "at close range", with a suggestion that Mrs Dewani might have been grabbing on to "someone or something" at the time she died.

A video taken shortly after her bloodied body was found was also shown to the court.

Through defence lawyer Francois Van Zyl, Mr Dewani said he had "had sexual interaction with both males and females".

"I consider myself to be bisexual," the court was told.

"My sexual interactions with males were mostly physical experiences or email chats with people I met online or in clubs, including prostitutes," Mr Dewani's witness statement said.

Mr Dewani said he had abnormally low levels of hormones, rendering his chances of having children slim. He said he discussed this with Anni, whom he began dating in summer 2009.

The court also heard of a volatile relationship between the newlyweds, including an "angry disagreement" in May 2010.

A letter sent later from Mr Dewani said "I really do love you. Want to be with you forever."

But Anni wanted to call off the wedding, claiming Mr Dewani was "too controlling", the court heard.

"We really frustrated each other, we were in love," he said through his lawyer.

At the scene - Karen Allen, Africa correspondent

Shrien Dewani stood upright and for the most part composed on the first day of his trial.

It is a trial that many believed would never be held in South Africa after a protracted extradition battle and concerns about Mr Dewani's mental health.

Defence lawyer Francois van Zyl revealed that Mr Dewani had said he was "bisexual", a fact that may serve to neutralise some of the fevered press speculation of recent months and police statements given by a gay escort who claims he spent time with Mr Dewani.

Tania Cadogan said...

The coming days are likely to see a detailed public examination of the couple's relationship.

But in a statement read out in court Mr Dewani said he had been "instantly attracted" to Anni when they first met and he sobbed quietly when a "love letter" he wrote to her after an argument, was read out in court.

The pair married later in 2010 and travelled to South Africa for their honeymoon. According to Mr Dewani, he bought flexible tickets for the trip.

It was when the couple arrived in Cape Town that Mr Dewani met taxi driver Zola Tonga, who has already admitted his part in Anni's murder.

Tonga told Mr Dewani he was an "executive tour guide", and was asked to hire a helicopter as a surprise for Anni.

The driver, according to Mr Dewani, also helped to change £5,000 in order to get "a good market rate".

On the night of Anni's death Mr Dewani was carrying "a large amount of cash", and Tongo had texted him to ask if he still had money for the helicopter ride.

Later, when they were in the taxi, Tongo pulled off the motorway and the car was stopped, the court heard.

"The next thing I recall is somebody next to me, who told me to lie down. The person had a gun in his hand. He was waving the gun in the air," Mr Dewani's statement said.

"We were both terrified and immediately complied with his demands. I was lying half on top of Anni. Another person was behind the steering wheel. I do not know where Tongo was at that stage."

Then, one of the gang asked Mr Dewani to get out of the car. When he refused, the court heard, a gun was held at his head before he got out of the car.

He then tried to find help before being taken back to his hotel by police.

Mr Dewani said he later met Tongo, whom he felt "sorry" for, and had planned to give him some money.

The case was adjourned until Wednesday.

Extracts of a letter from Shrien Dewani to Anni, dated May 2010

Dear Anni,

I realise we are very different but I have always believed in a relationship you can work through those differences. When we first met I immediately liked you ... And no not just because you are pretty ... but because you made me laugh.

I have always wanted a girl that I can be friends with. One that understands me - and I know that that is not easy. I know that I am so focussed that some people think I am intense. I am focussed on achieving things in life.

I really do love you, and hence I don't want you to be unhappy. I want to be with you forever but not if that makes you unhappy ... that I could not bear ... I really hope we work this out.

I am really sorry that I have made you feel like this. You are so precious to me - I know I don't always show it. I often find it difficult to show how much you mean to me ... But please do not think this is because I don't love you.

Speak to you later

Love always


Tania Cadogan said...

South African Xolile Mngeni was convicted of premeditated murder for shooting Mrs Dewani and jailed for life.

Prosecutors claimed he was hired to carry out the killing.

Zola Tongo, was jailed for 18 years after he admitted his part in the killing and another accomplice, Mziwamadoda Qwabe, also pleaded guilty to murder and was jailed for 25 years.

The start of proceedings in a South African court follows a near four-year legal battle to bring Mr Dewani to trial.

He was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder in December 2010 at the request of the South African authorities who said they would initiate extradition procedures.

Mr Dewani said he would not consent to being extradited.

Lawyers argued Mr Dewani was not fit to stand trial and that he would be mistreated in a South African prison.

He was detained in a hospital having been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Later, when Mr Dewani's health improved, a judge ruled he could be extradited and, despite winning the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, he was put on a plane to Cape Town in April.

Since then he has been held at the Valkenberg hospital unit awaiting trial.

Anonymous said...

John Mc Gowan said...

LIES Linguistic Interrogation Expert Services

Courtesy of Wes..

How important are pronouns? LOL!

Happy Monday!

Tania Cadogan said...

Further to the shrien dewani case, he said this

Dewani added: "The next thing I recall is somebody next to me, who told me to lie down. The person had a gun in his hand. He was waving the gun in the air."

First he starts with a temporal lacuna (the next thing)

It is interesting to see he refers firstly to somebody and then a person when referring to the man waving the gun in the air.

Why not say the man?
Is this him concealing the identity of the man because he knew him?

Defence lawyer Francois van Zyl revealed that Mr Dewani had said he was "bisexual", a fact that may serve to neutralise some of the fevered press speculation of recent months and police statements given by a gay escort who claims he spent time with Mr Dewani.
Rather than neutralise some of the press speculation and po;ice statement given by a gay escort, it will, i suspect provide a motive, where perhaps a motive had not been as prominent as previously.
She was murdered because he was bisexual and he didn't want it to get out.
She may well have suspected, especially given he was avoiding her touch.
He cancelled one engagement to another, perhaps he thought cancelling another would cause people to wonder, he instead perhaps wanted a sham marriage and Anni wasn't going to co-operate.

Anonymous said...


McCann troll 'sent thousands of hate tweets': Divorcee launched diatribes about Kate and Gerry's behaviour in aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance

Trigger said...

This letter does not contain a reliable denial.

first person singular
past tense verb
allegation specific

It has dropped pronouns

Anonymous said...

Did you guys hear about woman obsessed with tweeting about mccsanns found dead in hotel room?!

Anonymous said...

Mccann "troll" found dead in hotel room!!

Anonymous said...


Tania Cadogan said...

HI Anonymous.

In relation to the tweets from Brenda Leyland.

Complaints have been filed cincerning sky news and harrassment to both sky news and OFCOM.
Her tweets have been looked at and there has been little to no hate the examople they keep using is she wishes they burn in hell.
What is worth noting is they outed her tweet yet kept the names of far worse tweets used as an example redacted.
The group that reported her have reported a whole bunch of us who do not buy the mccanns version of events and who, using the official police files, have made it politely clear they are involved.
I am one they have named along with my pic.(they didn't even spell my nickname correctly)
It is interesting that the site that named a whole bunch of us refers to us in their page banner as "dideased and perverted minds">
it refers to threats made by us which i presime means demanding they face justice, they cooperate with LE and answer the 48 questions and do the reconstruction.

It is also worth noting that a lot of mccann supporter sites have gone very quiet and many have moved all the pages where they refer to us using insulting names and descriptions to members only and they are not accepting new members or invition only/limited membership.
Since clearly they have actually done what they accuse us of doing.
However google has a cache facility and access to many pages is easily done.

All along it seems they need to resort to insults and threats when we have asked them to explain why they believe the parents have no involvement and use evidence and reasoning, whilst we use the publicly available police files to explain why neither we nor LE are buying abduction (here is were SA reveals the truth)
Martin brunt broke the law when he publicly outed Brenda and splashed her all over the news despite other more serious and relevant new breaking. It seems she was target #1.

Bothe side have jerks who spit file abuse and threats at the other, usually on twitter, with some wearing multiple socks(fake names) The reputable forums moderate the comments and any that harrass, threaten etc are removed and the person banned.

Anonymous said...

Can't say as I blame the McCanns for wanting peace. It may be true they were negligent in leaving the child alone, but, what is done is done.

These trolls get way too invested in these cases/causes etc and seek to destroy everyone in their path.

The Ramsey case never dies when other children are begging for attention that are alive. No one can get over the fact that Casey Anthony is not playing with a full deck when everyone else is playing 52 card pickup.

They have become a gang of their own. Very Scary!

Anonymous said...

Tania --- man, stay safe. I am shocked that she was found dead in a hotel room. it only seems to support her theory of conspiracy. I haven't read up enough about the case to be sure what I think but I understand what it is to think somebody is guilty when they are free. I don't know what the right course of action is -- when you feel innocent people are free but the police tell you they are not interested in your take. I can understand how it might build obsession - or even just dedication. I don't know the solution. but people should not be showing up dead in hotel rooms, I know that.

Tania Cadogan said...

Anon (please choose a name)
I will.

I always assume that when i poke someone with a pointy stick (as in make a comment pointing out something they don;t want pointing out such as deceptions, ommissions and the unexpected) and i get a nasty comment or threat back it lets me know i have hit a sensitive spot and encourages me to dig deeper to see what they are so sensitive about.

The behavior and language of the mccanns of off the scale red flag, i want to know why.
i will keep asking till i get an answer.

I can be a persistant little bugger whilst being so polite.

Anonymous said...

I read up on the McCann case. If a fraction of what I read is true -- I can see why people post complaints over all of this.

Anonymous said...

for now I'd rather not choose a name on here. sorry, I see your request, I know it can get confusing as there are many anons -- but it's my choice for now.

Re: McCann - to me it's a tough call - I mean it really looks like thay are guilty - exactly what to do about it tho, I don't know. (for myself) I guess we all choose what we are willing to fight dirty for. right now -- I'm just shocked that woman is dead, nobody should die over arm chair detective work! I want to know why and how she died. that said - I respect pushing and taking risks for what is verly likely justice. death just makes me ask - maybe it's time to reconsider tactics.

Anonymous said...

I guess -- I'm not sure harrassment is the best way. tho. it's surely a higher road than murder.

Tania Cadogan said...

complaints were made and a dossier compiled that claimed she had made 1000's of hateful comments.

She hadn't.

She had made no threats to them or harrassed them, she did not believe their version of events and said they should burn in hell, something many of us have said when we seen crimes against children.

Looking at comments ained at her, they were far worse advocating sex crimes and worse against her.

I do not know if she wan an 'armchair detective' or if she was someone who said she didn't believe them and wanted justice for Maddie.
What is clear isthat sky news and martin brunt , one of their reporters stalked her for several days, even to her asking why he was following her on twitter and then confronted her over the tweet that said burn in hell.

We have asked why they haven't targetted those who have made vile threats against her and others including myself.

One has to ask if msm are in cahoots with the coverup.

I will make it known when i feel justice is not being done, that investigations are not being done properly and where prime suspects are not being investigated as they should.

My main priority is the mccanns, however i have followed, commented on and analysed a great many other cases , mostly missing children but also homidices and missing persons.

What nneds to be done is for the mccanns and their tapas chums to be interviewed under caution ion the uk including kate answering the 48 questions she refused to answer, to do a police reconstruction, to co-operate fully and tell the truth about what they were doing that week and especially that night.

The fact they won't is telling and indicates a reason for them to be deceptive and uncooperative.
it could be guilt or guilty knowledge regarding the death of Maddie or it could be something else..
Answering the questions could lead to why they need to lie and be non coperative

Anonymous said...

I expect it is a coverup. and it's very curious that the media does indeed seem to be complicit.

sorry if "armchair" detective sounded disrespectful. I didn't mean it so.

what I meant to express by that is that she didn't deserve such brutal backlash.

but also .. all this so much brings to mind…

there is a conspiracy theory that a lot of these missing children's cases are connected. that there are underground child abusing cults that are really cotrolled by the us and british government organizations l - & … the idea that the media is complicit in covering up the crimes - is part of the conspicacy theory. I have no proof of the conspiracy theory. I've just been reading about it out of curiosity,for example Nicole Kidman's father was accused as being a member of the ubusive cult. I'm not even sure if I believe or not but but I'm inclined to keep considering it, there's a lot of information that does support it, I see nothing so far to disprove it and this kind of story reminds me it's possible.

Buckley said...

I have no proof of the conspiracy theory... I'm not even sure if I believe or not but but I'm inclined to keep considering it, there's a lot of information that does support it, I see nothing so far to disprove it

I'm sorry, what?

Unknown said... others here I wish you to keep on and to also be safe. You and others who have publicly voiced your intelligent opinions are now being targeted as trolls. There are people out there who will not read the facts and make their opinions of you dangerously known. Brenda Leland from what I read said nothing wrong. This is a sad world.

You are a smart lady and I like you very much...and I don't always agree with your post but I respect them and know they are coming from an honest point of view. I support you and the other commenters on the dossier who are seeking truth from the mcanns.
Be safe out there in real life and in the cyber world.

Anonymous said...

Bucky... eh i dont want to write it sll out here. i guess what i want to say is.. even when you are right to voice descent .. there may be people in power who want to stop you and hurt you. and truth is important. but self preservation is also important.

Anonymous said...

Buckley i meant ..the missed l was an error.

Buckley said...

No, you say you have no evidence of a conspiracy then say there's a lot of information supporting a conspiracy out there.

Which is true?

Anonymous said...

Evidence supporting a theory doesn't prove a theory. evidence and inconclusive proof are similar but in principal very different things. For example when the media seems complicit in a coverup and the government willfully turns a blind eye to suspicious behavior surrounding missing child and parents lack curiosity toward foresic evidece pointung toward murder.... this is all evidence for a conspiracy even on a " small" scale. Howrver. its not air tight proof. variables do exist for other explanations. until they are all disproven.its a theory only.

Buckley said...

Sounds like semantic hair splitting. My thesaurus has "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms, defining evidence as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." I guess I'll accept your rebut that when called on your contradiction you meant absolute, iron clad proof, not just regular proof that may or may not be proof.

I ask because it sounds interesting but all you've really given us to go on is Nicole Kidman's father. But when you say "eh i dont want to write it sll out here." I totally get it ;)

Anonymous said...

it's super interesting actually. i'd be very down to discuss particulars, but it's so big -- as a theory -- it sounds almost rediculous to spit it out en mass if you dont sort of slowly take in bits and pieces and let it make sense to you through your own logic filters. it is a super absorbing theory. there's a lot on info out there. if you start with googling child abuse reports at us army day cares it might be a good entre point. or theories connecting ramseys to a satanic cult. or the death of loretta fuddy.

Anonymous said...

here's a briefer on the theory involving the Ramsey connection.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree Tania.

The McCanns especially since they have made millions by suing others and selling “find Madeline” stuff.

Yet the facts of the case lead to Madeline dying. Not abduction.

And when you have cadaver scent on the childs toy, in the closet, the car you rented….. and you don’t fear for your child but rather seek to discredit the cadaver dogs. That’s a red flag.

I can even see trying to find out if there were deaths in the hotel and car. But they went right to discredit source.

But Gerry McCann…..the dogs were not wrong.

There was a dead body in all those places.

AND…just because the body is not there does not take that away.

Even the case that they tried to use to help discredit the dogs, the man later admitted he had killed his wife and she was in that location at one point.

Dogs were not wrong. There was a dead body. If it was not Madeline, then if you think they are innocent, tell us where that came from.

Kate being in General Practice (which is like going to your annual check up) did not put her in direct contact with cadavers.

I mean, when was the last time someone died at a doctors office and left sitting there for over an hour?

Pretty sure its not common.

So that excuse does NOT work.

Anonymous said...

I guess I say I see evidence but not yet totally convinced ---- because it's so outragious -- it's really an outeagous theory -- -- it should take a lot lot lot of proof to believe it -- and yet so much seems to fall in line with it, -- so it's like I don't believe it ad yet I keep thinking maybe I should. or the opposite, I feel both.

trustmeigetit said...

Anonymous said... Can't say as I blame the McCann’s for wanting peace. It may be true they were negligent in leaving the child alone, but, what is done is done.

The McCann’s do not want peace. If they did, they would just have gone on with life. Instead they keep the fund live (while not searching) and choose instead to put their energy to suing others.

They are making millions off this.

They no longer work and they manage to travel and pay excessive attorney fees.

They are not searing for a missing child but their goal is to keep the money coming in and quiet those that think they were involved.

They got political support from day one. UNHEARD OF IN ANY OTHER CASE.

There was a lot of clues that lead to their guilt but instead of facing it and answering questions, they hid behind these political forces and then proceeded to attack others.

If they were not protected politically, I think it’s very likely the police in Portugal would have been able to get enough evidence.

Again, if you think your child was kidnapped and is being hurt, why would you spend your time in court over someone’s theory when it’s clear you are never facing charges.

I just think they are profiting off what they did and are supported because they have friends in high places.

It’s not fair or right.

And people have the right to be mad.

Especially those in England. Their tax money is paying for millions of wasted dollars to do searches that based on tips that have no relevance to the case. They are just looking for anything to keep the spotlight off the McCann’s.

It needs to stop.

trustmeigetit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
trustmeigetit said...

For those that think they are “Searching” tell me how?

Simple question.

What have they done to find their child?

They have a fund. A fund that pays their mortgage, travel expenses (to fly to sue people) and cover attorney fees.

So how are they searching for their child?

Simple question.

The times they are in the news is usually when they are suing someone.

They also do talk shows (or did), run marathons, etc.

But they are not searching.

Kate said herself they never “physically searched”.

Can you fathom this? Your child is not in the unlocked room and you don’t physically search?

So if they can tell us how they are searching, I may listen.

But from where I stand, they are not doing anything but going after those that state they are guilty.

If my son was missing, I WOULD NOT CARE.

I would be searching the ends of the earth. I would be worried about him. Is he hurt, hungry, scared. My issues would not be going after theories.

And you want to see what parents do when they really have a “missing child”. Look at the Holloways.

They were in Aruba the day she didn’t met friends for her flight home

They found Joren. They hounded him then later hounded his parents.
They hounded the police.

They searched the streets showing her photo to everyone that would speak with them.

They searched bars, trash cans, landfills.
Her dad even had a tip that she was involved with drugs and took some friends and they broke into crack houses risking their lives.

This is what parents of a missing child do.

Gerry and Kate have don’t nothing to search.

But they have taken the money and have sued others for their theories.

How anyone can think they are innocent is beyond me.

trustmeigetit said...

An anon posted this on Pat Browns blog today.

Very curious what everyone thinks about the last section where he stated “there is no evidence in fact to suggest she has been seriously harmed."

Gerry McCann in 2009: "I think the most damning thing of all of this and the most damaging aspect of all the coverage which Kate and I cannot forgive is the presentation that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that Madeleine is dead when there is no evidence in fact to suggest she has been seriously harmed."

Tania Cadogan said...

Gerry McCann in 2009: "I think the most damning thing of all of this and the most damaging aspect of all the coverage which Kate and I cannot forgive is the presentation that there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that Madeleine is dead when there is no evidence in fact to suggest she has been seriously harmed.

There you have it, one of the reasons why i am so vocal about their involvement.

Note he minimises it from "there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that Madeleine is dead"
to "there is no evidence in fact to suggest she has been seriously harmed".

Everytime he opens his mouth he leaks whacking big marbles and digs himself even deeper in the hole along with his wifey.