Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Violence in Language

In some recent analysis, I have shown "the language of domestic violence" within statements. This is something that we must approach with caution, as context is key.

Statistically, there are studies that link linguistical threats to the carrying out of violence.  Years ago, Pat Brown (I love her books) wrote that in a seminar, she asks people to imagine killing someone, and states that if one can picture it, they can carry it out.

For 'inspiration', she sets up the scenario:  You've just come upon a child rapist attacking your child.

Most parents will be able to imagine taking the life of the perpetrator.

For us, (Statement Analysis) the words, rather than the imagination, are a greater guide in this.

"You cannot stop birds from flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build a next in your hair", (attributed to Martin Luther, though my wording may not be exact) does indicate a "step" in the process.

The brain visualizes something, but it takes another step in the process for the brain to take this imagery,

1.  Search its dictionary
2.  Choose specific words
3.  Formulate these words into a specific order due to priority
4.  Then formulate a cohesive sentence for the purpose of communication

This entire process may be measured in milliseconds.

It is this speed that gives us our high reliability in analysis, far succeeding that of body language analysis which not only needs a very long baseline, but is impacted by psychotropic medication, other medications, and overall health.  A sinus infection can appear like snobbery.

Dr. Paul Ekman this past fall sent out an email stating that he would not conclude deception indicated unless he, himself, conducted the interview.

This de-rails his students who have sought to teach micro-expression training, since the 'father of micro-expressions' will not make decisions, how can the lesser practicioners?  Even more so, the students of the less practicioners?

This is not to debunk Dr. Ekman's research; it is to affirm it.

The micro-expression moves by so quickly that he needed video to catch it, and even with constant training, there isn't measurable, teachable success.  He is right to not make a judgement of truth versus deception,  and his fans should do the same.

The very speed by which the brain processes speech makes our work successful.

In statements, there are indicators of violence, just as there are indicators of deception.  In choosing of words, the violent often use imagery that reflects the violence they are, for lack of better wording, 'less' opposed to it than others.

We note the need to control, for example, in the sentences of domestic violence.  The need to control will sometimes be seen in passivity, as someone "finds oneself" in this situation or that, with the passivity used to protect the ego from giving control over to someone else, or even to circumstances.

Yet, this is the very thing that those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions do:  blame others, or blame situations.

This is where balance and understanding enter the analysis.

The narcissist controller can be different than a selfish controller, whereas both may be violent.

For one, the passivity is because he cannot accept that someone exerted control over him, while the latter may use the "someone" to blame.

We sometimes hear certain self-help philosophies that say "you are only taken advantage of when you let someone take advantage of you", with the thought of empowering someone.   While there are those who become constant doormats for others, the simple societal acceptance of polite behavior allows for bullies to exert themselves over others, and it is usually, in both progression of language and behavior, something that is resisted, but only after considerable damage has been done.

Specifically, all companies should screen for violence in statements but no more than in:

a.  Law Enforcement
b.  Business in which clients are particularly vulnerable.

Everyone and anyone can "snap" given enough pressure, but there are those who's own language reveals the comfort level with resolving issues by force.

These can, and should be screened for in the interview process.

Next up:  How to use the subject's own language in order to...


Anonymous said...

there are a lot of snippets of testimony coming out of boston bombing trial. alleged victims retelling their experience. i'd be very interested in analysis. I see lots of indicators that they are not recalling authentic experience of how they experienced injury and death.

Anonymous said...

here are a whole bunch of quotes from boston bombing victim testimony today. just take a look -- even if you are 100% sure it's all real. look at the words they say, consider if they follow the expectations of lack of deception.

Anonymous said...

John Mc Gowan said...


Leaking Marbles.

Fresh Hope For Natalee Holloway's Father As Disappearance Nears 10th Anniversary

An Amsterdam man who claims to have seen Joran van der Sloot dispose of missing U.S. citizen Natalee Holloway's body in Aruba has given the young woman's father new hope for answers as the 10-year anniversary of her disappearance approaches.

"I don’t want to get my hopes up high because I've done that in the past, but it kind of makes me wonder," Dave Holloway told The Huffington Post. "What if there is something to it?"

Holloway said Jurrien de Jong, 59, told him last year that he saw van der Sloot hide his daughter's body at a construction site in Aruba in 2005. De Jong recently shared the story with a Dutch newspaper.

According to The Algemeen Dagblad, de Jong said he was hanging out at a hotel construction site when he saw van der Sloot and Holloway come through a gate. He said he heard them talking and hid. What happened directly after that wasn't clear. De Jong said he next saw van der Sloot a short time later, carrying Holloway's body into a crawl space under the building.

"He [dug a hole] and [put] Natalee inside," de Jong told the newspaper. He said he watched van der Sloot cover the hole with sand, then walk away.

Holloway's daughter was 18 when she disappeared on May 30, 2005, while on a trip to Aruba to celebrate her high school graduation. Her classmates said they last saw her leaving an Aruban nightclub with van der Sloot, then a 17-year-old Dutch honors student living in Aruba. Van der Sloot was questioned, but was released without being charged.

Van der Sloot is serving a 28-year prison sentence for the unrelated murder of Stephany Flores in Peru. The Peruvian business student was found stabbed to death in van der Sloot's Lima hotel room on June 2, 2010.

"I've never met this guy, but he was very believable over the phone," Holloway said of de Jong. "But you can't really size someone up till you meet them in person."

De Jong, The Algemeen Dagblad reported, said he did not immediately come forward with information about what he had seen in Aruba because he was involved in illegal, drug-related activities at the time.

"I dared not to talk about what I saw, because I [would have had to] reveal my own [activities]," he said.

Holloway said the location de Jong described to him is where a Marriott hotel was under construction in May 2005. It's not far from the hotel where his daughter was staying when she disappeared.

Holloway said the story fits with an exchange police say they had with van der Sloot in the weeks following the young woman's disappearance.

"On June 18 [2005], the investigator asked the question, 'Where did you hide the girl?' Joran's response was, 'I don’t know where she's buried.' The police officer then said, 'I didn’t ask you where she's buried, I asked you where she's hidden,'" Holloway said.

Holloway added: "You can't overlook that. If you make up a story, there's always going to be some truth to it. You just have to figure out which is the truth and which is the lie."

The Algemeen Dagblad reported that authorities in Aruba consider de Jong's story "implausible." However, NL Times reports that Aruba's new prosecutor, Eric Olthof, who has been in office since the summer, is reviewing the investigation of Holloway's disappearance and is looking into de Jong's claims.

For now, Holloway struggles with unanswered questions.

"I always thought the answer was right around the corner," Holloway said. "Here we are nearly 10 years later and we still don't know."

Anonymous said...

I am so upset about boston bombing trial. what kind of dense attorney says "he did it" right after having her client plead not guilty to all charges. she's not really defending him. if she doesn't do her job it's not a fair trial.

GetThem said...

"The narcissist controller can be different than a selfish controller, whereas both may be violent."

Like Hailey done vs. Justin Reynolds

GetThem said...

Dunn not "done"

Gather These said...

Spellcheck!! Disable it!!!

Anonymous said...

Boston Bombing victims not producing authentic statements of injury?

How quickly did the unexpected happen?

stupid.your STUPID said...

Boston victims NOT LIARS u STUPID SHIT!!

stfu said...

Awwwww didums!!!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps this link will help:

It would be much easier watching and judging woes in a far away land and reaching out to them. Thus becoming victorious!

trustmeigetit said...

In the Holloway case...I would not be surprised if daddy's to Aruba to look himself.

Interesting that Joren said he didn't know where she was "buried" when asked where he hid her. That sure matches up with this witness saying she was buried. VS tossed into the ocean or just left in the woods.

If it were me, if the police didn't look I would go myself. Her parents need closure. I know worn seeing if my child was hurt or suffering would be my fear everyday. I would always want them to be alive but at this point, I hope for them to get closure and at least be in peace that she's not currently suffering.

Anonymous said...

Do you have anything with their actual statements, rather than bits and pieces tweeted by someone else?

What exactly do you think the big conspiracy is? Why a conspiracy? And how, how would such a huge conspiracy "play out"? You seriously don't think these victims, who lost limbs, and some of which died, are telling the truth? I don't get it, sorry.

I also don't know why you're so upset over his attorney. He (the bomber) obviously did it. His lawyer is trying to lessen his sentence to avoid the death penalty. That being the case, I don't understand how he can plead not guilty, yet admit to guilt. Guilty does not mean not guilt . Idk, maybe that's some crazy Allah teachings.

Carnival Barker said...

@ Trustme,

The Marriott hotel has since been built on top of where this witness says Jordan buried Natalee.

John Mc Gowan said...


Jodi Arias Trial: Jury Has Reached a Verdict

The jury has reached a verdict in the sentencing phase for convicted killer Jodi Arias.

The verdict, which will be released later today, comes after a second jury considered her case because the first jury, which convicted her of murder two years ago, could not agree on whether to sentence her to death.

Tania Cadogan said...

Jodi arias jury is hung, mistrial and death penalty is off the table,

now it is life without parole or life with possibility of parole after 25 years.

I bet she will be doing a happy dance out of view of the cameras >>I am disappointed in this jury failing to do what they promised they said they could do.

Anonymous said...

re boston bombing trial - -

I'm upset because it looks like the lawyer is taking a dive. it's bizarre, even OJ Simpson Lawyer fought to defend - and for that matter one. cases can seem open and shut but it's the defense lawyers job to fight it out. when a defense lawyer makes the prosecutors job really easy - it's disconcerting - no matter who is on trial.

I do not feel convinced that the defendant is guilty, I would REALLY like to see the prosecutors present their case in it's entirety, it appears that he's guilty for sure -- but in fact -- we don't know exactly how the FBI is so sure - just that they tell us they are sure. I'd like to see the evidence, that's the purpose of a trial. I see A LOT of info out there that makes me question the whole thing -- it looks like staged theatrical disaster play acting. I do not know the motive for doing something like this or exactly what it takes to get away with it -- but I can't deny that is what it looks like. so many details do not appear authentic. it's super bizarre -- and I want to see the facts of the case - otherwise -- I only more so suspect it's a hoax -- if the defense refuses to challenge the accusation.

and yes - if the defense was going to be guilt - he should have plead guilty - that's how you make a deal to avoid death. what the defense is doing seems to be not in the defendants interests on any level - this is bizarre.

and I do think the people who lost limbs - lots limbs before the event. I do think it's a highly orchestrated hoax. I do not know the motive. all I have is my common sense looking at images of the victims on the ground - and what I know if how real injuries play out.

Anonymous said...

no cameras are allowed in courthouse of boston trial -- another bizarre detail. and no transcript so far have been made public -- super unusual. best I got are the tweets. if I see something else become available i'll post link.

Anonymous said...

Witnesses, including survivors and first responders, deliver gripping testimony.
Jeff Bauman, who lost his lower legs in the blasts, says he thought he was going to die.
“I kind of made peace with myself," Bauman tells the court.

-- from todays's courtroom blog. why "kind of"?
another refers to starring in a horror movie, and another says his kid asked him if this was really happening. -- these are just all things you don't normally hear, nothing conclusive i agree -- but they all allude to something untrue.

Anonymous said...

blog on boston trial - steady stream of quotes

Sara said...

Does the Boston Bombing suspect have a court appointed attorney? If that's the case, it explains them throwing him under the bus. Cause think about it--- who's paying the attorney? Same "person" who's paying the prosecutors and the judge, oh and the jury too (jurors get a small per diem for jury duty).
As for Arias, I'm glad she'll be rotting in jail for years to come. Two jury's couldn't agree. What more could we ask for? I have a ton of respect for those jurors. Talk about doing your civic duty! They gave up their normal lives for sssooo long. Think about all the people who make up bull crap just to get out of a two day, easy breezy trial. They deserve our Thanks.

Anonymous said...

He lost both his legs. He may never be fully at peace.

I do appreciate your point of view and opinions, because of the way you explain yourself (minus insults and rudeness like we sometimes see from people with different opinions). I don't agree with your opinions though lol.

Anonymous said...

I think if it was ever discovered that they intentionally lost a case, they could be in deep legal trouble and probably lose their license (or whatever it is). I don't think they intentionally lose cases. If they happen to win a high profile case, it could be a huge career builder. Plus I think most of them genuinely enjoy their job (I don't know how lol).

Anonymous said...

I respect you too. whoever you are :) and it's ok with me that we don't agree. I think it's a lot to agree with and -- if you don't see the same clues the same way -- it sounds ridiculous what I'm saying - I get that.

I didn't think it at first myself - I took the story as it was presented back when it happened, I heard rumors of conspiracy theory but I didn't pay any mind - I didn't know what it was about and figured it was just weird goofiness.

it wasn't till past year I rediscovered the theories via some other research I was doing and finally just sat down and watched a bunch of footage of the bombing with people pointing out inconsistancies. and after a while I was overwhelmed - with realizing there was no way around it - fakery was being used. I've been on a lot of film sets. and in previous years a lot of theater - I can spot details. things a lot of people could see if they knew what to look for. I have to say I don't know exactly how they did it and I think they used multiple methods, but there is deception in the aftermath of the bombing. I suspect the bombs were more pyrotechnics than strapless delivering bombs. but -- since I think a lot or all to some degree of the footage we see of the aftermath is doctored either there on the street - or in editing - I have no idea what really did happpen. perhaps people really were killed, but I would bet anything they are NOT the people on camera. the people on camera are acting. and so likely - no one was killed. IMO . I know it sounds super crazy and offensive it's not my intent. but when you see deception - on such a crucial scale -- when I see it -- I can't keep quiet about it.

and yeah -- I agree the lawyer is paid by government, and if there was a coverup here - surely some part of gov had a hand in it - so it's super conflict of interest that a possible patsy is being represented by somebody working for the other side, --- it's really hard to know for sure. but he's not getting represented well. and that's not legal. he should have a defense. the prosecution should have their case challenged, thats how a trial works.

anyway -- :) that's for your respect I respect you too.

Unknown said...

Hi Anon 7:24

He does have a defense. His attorney is making the only argument possible considering his confession.

His attorney asserts that he is 'not guilty', not because he is innocent, (meaning he factually didn't commit the crime) but rather on the grounds that he was brainwashed, and radicalized by his older brother, and hoping to persuade the jury that he was incapable of thinking for himself, or separating right from wrong, due to his older brother's influence.

It's the same as someone pleading not guilty due to insanity, or self defense. The attorney must acknowledge that their client DID commit the crime, but argue that they should not be held legally responsible due to their state of mind, or the circumstances surrounding the crime.

There is nothing special about the defense attorney conceding guilt, yet arguing for a reason their client's culpability should be diminished. It goes on in court rooms every day.

Think Jodi Arias. She pled 'not guilty', yet her attorney's admitted she killed Travis Alexander in their opening statement, and she later testified that she killed him. Her attorney's argued that she was scared for her own life, and therefore should be found 'not guilty' on the grounds of self defense.

Anonymous said...

hi Jen Ow -- hm, you have a good point. I think I would agree with you IF I didn't see so many holes in states case, so many opportunities to present reasonable doubt that he did it at all. In the case of Jodie she literally took photos of herself stabbing the guy. so - I can see how that was the only way to go of the defense, and the brainwashing or insanity thing -- insanity is a specific plea - you have to plea it from the start not work up to it, and she did not plea insanity. then brainwashing -- thing is I don't think anybody is gonna believe older brother brainwashed younger, sure maybe there was influence - but I just think it's a super weak defense, I think if the lawyer says he did it - but his brother made him - they will put him to death - no reason not to.

but there's such crazy stuff to bring up to create doubt of his guilt at all - for example FBI claimed not to know who he was - but they had been meeting with him and his brother for years. also the "confession" was found many weeks after he crawled out of that boat - it there ANY evidence it was really him that wrote that note? I find it super hard to believe - the note is long and perfectly right side up - yet he was in fetal position injured -- you can see from helicopter heat sensitive images - how did he write such a long even handed note with a pencil? so many people could have planted that note. people plant evidence all the time. also you've got a LOT of dudes walking around that day with back packs, there are a lot of other possible suspects, but FBI insisted we the public not look at them, that's strange, --- these are all things I'd bring up in defense, and I'd really want to have the prosecution prove that note came from him, that backpack could only have been his, etc,. I actually think it would be very hard to prove.

Anonymous said...

some FBI behavior and statements I think are suspicios, following bombing.

Anonymous said...

also this inside of the boat is brown mood. but the note is on a white surface. no photos show the note and the rest of the boat in same pic - -all you get is this super close up of the note. I don't see why we should believe the note was ever actually written on the boat at all. I certainly don't see why a lawyer wouldn't demand that be proven .

Anonymous said...

brown wood

Linda said...

To anon who thinks Boston bombing was a hoax who would have orchestrated such a hoax and why?????
Jen Ow, Tsaernev's defense is so full of holes. I have read extensively about both brothers and if anything, Tsaernev was the psychopath between the 2 who would have organized the plan. Tamerlan displayed depression, and other "human" qualities prior to the bombing whereas Tsaernev has displayed much more psychopathic qualities both before and after the bombing. Immediately after the bombing he casually pondered what kind of milk to buy from Whole Foods and tweeted "I am a stress free kind of guy". He slept soundly, went to the gym and went to a party and was relaxed. He also shows no reaction to the wotness testimony stretching and yawning. The only thing I find odd is how the father of the 8 yr old boy who was killed held himself back from throttling Tssaernev or going off on him when he was on the witness stand?!

Linda said...

Those are not court appointed lawyers Tsaernev has either. He's got one of the best lawyers out there for getting someone off the death penalty. She is the same lawyer who defended Susan Smith and the Oklahoma City bomber and also the Unabomber.
I think he's going to get the death penalty. There is nothing sympathetic about Tsaernev and I also believe they are fabricating he was controlled by older brother.

Linda said...

Anon who thinks it is a hoax: I do not agree it was a hoax. What about the people who actualky died? Did they just "disappear" them off the planet? The only thing I thought was odd is (I am in MA) when the FBI first released images of the brothers asking for the public's help, the images were VERY poor quality, rodiculously poor quality, but then the day they caught Tsaernev the media was showing the same exact images but they were crystal clear! I noticed this because I am in MA so I wanted to keep my eyes peeled looking for them but the images were so fuzzy then they became completely clear once they were caught 2 days later?!?!

Unknown said...

To clarify, I don't believe that the younger brother was brainwashed. I was simply explaining the defense strategy to Anon, who questioned why they pled not guilty, then admitted his guilt.

The defense is arguing for reduced culpability, and hoping for a lighter sentence, (meaning less than the death penalty). They have conceded his participation, but want the jury to consider his age, and the influence of his older brother as mitigation of his guilt. (Whether those things were a factor, or not.)

It's really the only approach they could take. By pleading guilty, they would have given up his right to appeal, and the justice department had approved/sought the death penalty. Pleading not guilty was their only option for a lesser sentence, (to save his life) but they can't insult the jury's intelligence by denying his involvement, and then ask the same jury to spare his life.

Personally, I think he deserves the DP, and I only wish he had gone the same way as his brother, rather than spending millions on his trial, and decades of appeal!

Anonymous said...

hi Linda -

I'm anon who thinks it's a hoax.

I can't be sure of motive. but just because I don't know motive doesn't mean I can't identify reasons to think it was a hoax. I'm not sure if people died or not - I'm so removed - I live on other side of Country, if people say their family members died - I have little to go on beyond their word to know for sure either way. my first assumption is - of course that must be true, just like they are saying.

but then I see a lot of other parts of the story and footage doesn't makse sense, and I become unsure If I believe that people died. but -- unsure - is just that -- unsure - as I recognize I can't know from my distance.

I suspect there was some kind of military involvement, perhaps a branch of homeland security or Blackwater or Craft. I'm not an expert on these institutions -- but I do understand that they guy huge funding and contracts - but to continue to get thoat money they need to continue to sway American people and in turn congress to continue to vote to give them all that money. I suspect the boston Bombing was a kind of psychological comercial - we are still in danger -- keep money going into these progrms. that is just my best guess for motive, it could be something I haven't guessed. but part of the reason I think that is the style of how the people acted after the bombing ,there were no ambulances brought to the people, instead people were wheeled away . this is how war disasters are treated and not how domestic disasters are treated, it has the style of a war training excersice, now you culd say -- bombs makes the situation a war even th its in the us city -- but it's just not so -- ambulances were availabe in abundance blocks away but they were not bought in. this goes against logic and policy,

IF I can never spell his name - the defendant - did what it appear he did - I agree - he should be punished - personally I think life in solitary could be worse than death - but I'm glad it's not my choice, --- but I see so muc that makes me think he's a patsy. so much , I don't know for absolute sure. but -- the more the defense refuses to chalenge the prosecution and require them to prove he did it -- the more I wonder if it's a continuation of a hoax.

interestingly -- many people have conspiracy theories about her past clients - I haven't read up enough to know what I think on those cases, but it's an odd career path to always represent people -- that there are many pwople who think they are government patsys, what are the odds. I just think it's suspicious, and I'm sure some things here are not as they seem.

Anonymous said...

also -- if any deaths were fabricated - I don't think people magically vanished. It's really not that hard to fabricate the existance of a person in first place -- to then say they died. if there were any fabricated deaths -- I think thts what they did, but I don't know if thats what happened, I can't see evidence either way for that,

but I do think that Jeff Bauman - the guy with two legs missing - alreay was missing two legs when he got to the race that day, that I can say I am sure on - from all of the images I've seen. I do not believe its possibe for him to get wheeled down the street and not pass out and not drip any blood - having just lost two legs. it's a medical impossability. --- so I really don't know about other deaths. or what anybody else suffered or did not suffer, but I do know -- jeff did not lose two legs that day. I know that part was staged, I do not know why.

Linda said...

Anon, I think part of it may be that the whole thing seems "stranger than fiction". Being here in MA, in fact my sister lives on the se street the cops had a shoot-out woth the brothers and the brothers were throwing pressure-cooker bombs out the car window at the cops, the whole thing was insane! I stood as a child on the finish line watching my father run the Boston Marathon. The surreal factor was definitely there as I watcged events unfold But how could it be a hoax? Dont you think if Jeff Baumann had really been missing both legs before the bombing people who knew him would step forth and say "Hey that guy was already missing his legs!" Plus I saw footage of him when he first tried to stand up not realizing his legs are gone and it was horrifying!!! What about the little boy who died and his sister is now missing a leg? How could people have fabricated his existence or the little girl losing her leg? I do not understand the father keeping his composure on the witness stand today because if I were him I would have throttled Tsaernev! No question! I would have gone nuts on Tsaernev!!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Linda -- wow -- yeah I can't imagine being on the street where the police battled it out with brothers.

I do agree -- somethings in life are so bizarre the brain seeks to explain them away as not real. esp in the moment it happens -- for example I remember when s friend of mine died years ago - I went nearly blind for maybe 30 seconds when I got the news, it was just so shocking my ability to process new info went off.

maybe that's not an exact example -- but I do agree -- sometimes people doubt what they can't comprehend. like people found incredible child abuse -- but it really happens, etc.

I just want to suggest -- that in this case -- it's possible the reverse is applicable too. it's too much to comprehend that this could be a performance, because in a certain respect it's a more horrifying crime that ALL these people are involved in the phsychological trauma inducing theater, and the media has to be complicit too -- etc. it means we are living in some kind of Orwellian spiral of north-korean style brainwashing. and it's just too ludicrous.

I don't know that we are as bad off as north korea -- or what exactly it means for us, but --- It's not impossible to pull off what we saw in the boston bombing as a hoax. my "theory" is possible. the resources exist. the capability of people to be in cahoots and to lie, for charity profit, industry proffit and for bigger reasons, - exists. and also - absolutely it's possible it was real -- obvs bombs and real carnage can be real too.

It's like one of those magic eyes - in my opinion. you look at it -- all the news stories etc - and you see -- you see what it looks like on the surface, and it's horrible, and then somebody say -- hey if you squint when you look at that there's actually this whole underwater scene in there -- and you think -- that person is crazy . there is not underwater scene.

but then if you try to allow -- for whatever it really is rather than what you've been first told it it -- it's possible to see -- wow -- this is not just a flat clean surface -- there is more to it.

if there had been a car chase on my street -- I dunno - what can I say. I've do count they apprehended those brothers. but I also think the younger brother acted so nonchalantly following bombing - because he didn't believe he killed people. there was some kind of drill going on. maybe FBI had asked him to be one of the players in it, maybe he didn't for a second guess he was going to then be turned on by the FBI.

I came to these thought by viewing tons of images from the bombing -- and after enough time -- I just had to admit -- there was fraud going on. and it's freaky to me -- that then (whoever) can organize on this level. it's surreal. but the mystery of how and who and way is probably part of what makes them capable.

I dunno what to say -- :) I can totally understand not seeing the underwater scene. and thinking what i'm saying is just too out there. but I still think it's there.

greetings from the other coast :)

Linda said...

Hey there, What you are saying is interesting and certain things have raised question marks with me like
1) Why were the images of the brothers blurry when they were hunting them but then when they caught them those same images became crystal clear?
2). Why did the FBI shoot and kill one of the bombers friends in another state in his home while they were interviewing him with a very weird explanation like he tried to stand up or somethjng like that? (Did you hear about that? That was REALLY strange!).
3). I do agree with you that I find some of the statements from witnesses to be odd. Some of the victims seem nonchalant and poised in interviews Ive seen that were done in the past couple days and with the father I dont want judge him in any way maybe he is numb or something but I just cant imagine him remaining composed on the stand sitting 12 feet from Tsaermev.
I agree that something is off. Maybe these brothers were hired by someone and that someone does not want themselves known like it could be something really shady where it is a powerful person with inside connections? I dont get why the FBI shot that guy who knew the brothers but had no incolvement? Did he know something and someone wanted him dead is what I wondered. I lean towards thinking it really happened but that it goes beyond the brothers and the people who perhaps hired the brothers or ordered the brothers to do it are very powerful and want it kept quiet.

Anonymous said...

Hi. Can I Just say that I love you are considering these things! Even if you do not think it was staged. I did hear about guy who was killed in questioning, makes it look o much like fbi felt he knew too much, also dunno if you've seen the tons of Blackwater craft guys walking around with black backpacks that day. They all got khaki panda and shoes and black jackets, they really look like they could be part of some recon thing but fbi insists public do not look at those images and focus on brothers, .. I think it's common sense something is b r ing hidden. But then....why. and why is defense lawyer not calling them out on this, at the least it makes it look like her client is framed and she should bring that up, it's her job. Which makes me think conspiracy runs very deep if she's acting in support of it,

Anonymous said...

I never noticed about photos later coming into focus. Oustanding point!

Also- personally I cringe when I hear the victims talk. It sounds very on message to me, it does not sound like natural human. Grief and anger. I feel o can see so clearly they are acting, but then it's not based on anything but my feeling in those cases.

Anonymous said...

“I saw a little boy who had his body severely damaged by an explosion,” Bill Richard, the father of tragic Martin Richard, said on the second day of the federal trial of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “From what I saw, there was no chance.”

Linda said...


Absolutely, I thought something was strange from the start with the blurry images bc here in MA everyone wanted to keep their eyes open looking for the bombers but the images were terriblly blurry. I even said to a family member why in the world cant they get them clearer even why wouldnt they have an artist fill in what they could of the images? Keep in mind this is when they NEEDED to catch the bombers before they fled, in fact the bombers were caught on their way to New York to do another bombing. As soon as they are caught the images become clear. In fact it was Jeff Baumann who steered the FBI to what to look for on the videos bc he had seen I think Tamerlan. Otherwise they wouldnt have caught these guys with the blurry images! The blurry images made me feel like they didnt want to catch them!! I did see pics of the FBI guys at the marathon and heard how initialky there was supposed to be some kind of "drill". That never really got explained but that day people thought there was another bombing going on at a Boston library but it was a "drill". It really makes you wonder. The situation of the guy the FBI killed is very odd--they were supposed to do an internal investigation. I did think some of the statements from the father are odd also--they seem depersonalized. My heart goes out to him greatly but I do find some of his statements odd. The only way I can describe is depersonalized, sounds more like an EMT on the scene. It is interesring to hear your thoughts. I think we are not getting the full story for sure. I do think Tsaernev's defense is bizarre, more like defense is just going through the motions of something that has no chance of succeeding especially since there is no evidence brother was "in charge". Psychologically Tsaernev seems more psychopathic so I believe the defense will fail, kinda like it's hard to believe they even think they have a chance!

Anonymous said...

I was just thinking earlier today -- who is paying the defense lawyer?? she has this long career of defending these high profile - but poor super bad guys - unabomber - susan smith, etc. who pays her?? lawyers take on high profile cases pro bono because it boosts their status and then they can get high paying other clients -- but she seems to have guilt her entire career on going from one to the next high profile client who surely can't pay her. I would really like to know who pays her.

did you hear that guy who was killed in interrogation even said to his family -- they are coming to kill me - when FBI was on their way? he must have known he knew too much .

yeah - I'm convinced FBI was trying to manipulate the public focus and process of discovery, . more so than seek justice.

I posted above a quite by the sad saying "I saw a little boy who had his body severely damaged" -- I just can't get my head around how somebody would not say -- my son, or edward, or my baby, etc. instead of "a" little boy. it's your little boy! not "a". -- also I do not hear people describing physical pain in victim testimony - I hear them describing what they saw -- but not what they felt. this makes no sense -- pain sensation is huge in sense memory, except - if it was makeup and prothesis and tricks of theatrical technique - than their memory being rooted in sight and not sensation would make sense.

Anonymous said...

Now that's an insult!