Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Association of Guilt with the Pronoun "We"

Lied to commit theft via exploitation 
People lie for a reason.  

They are often 'caught' in their lies by their use of pronouns.   

When someone is expected to use the pronoun "I", the use of another pronoun should simply raise the question, "Why?"

But note how we word our "why?" questions:  

Why does the subject use the pronoun "we" here?
Why does the subject avoid using the pronoun "I" here?

Some facts:

Pronouns are intuitive.  They are not 'pre thought.'  
The brain's result of repetition means near perfection - that is, after using the pronoun "I" millions of times, the human is efficient at its usage meaning:

if the pronoun is 'wrong', there is likely deception.  

In fact, the pronoun "I" is so powerfully efficient that when a non-stuttering subject stutters on "I", the psychology of being "in" this statement "personally" begins to tell a story all its own, leading us to ask, again,

"Why would the subject stutter here on the pronoun "I"?"

The pronoun "I" represents the person, himself.  He has been addressing others (communication) representing himself, since the earliest days of speech.  He protects self, he projects self, he interprets self, and interprets others based on self.  He identifies and defines self.  In other words,

the importance of the pronoun "I" cannot be overstated.  

"Just went to the store with my friends, mom.  That's all we did." 

Moms of teens recognize:  

my son did not say "I" in his response.  The analyst also heard the word "just", which is a dependent word, meaning, the subject is thinking of something other than going to the store.  Mom likely also heard the pronoun "we" enter the statement, and the analyst added the word "all", as unnecessary, with the suggestion of connecting the word "all" with the word "just" to learn:

What was my son comparing going to the store with? Followed by,

Was it a thought, or did they go elsewhere?  

She knows, however, the right question trail to stay on. Mom also recognizes that guilt does not like to be 'alone' with the pronoun "I."

She thinks to herself:  

"Why did my son want to first remove himself from the statement, and then why did my son need to include others in his statement?"

Guilt hates to be alone.  

Adults trained in childhood to take personal responsibility for their actions often reveal this in their statements.  The 'need for a crowd' enters the language of those who may not have been raised to take personal responsibility.  

Recovering addicts are very firm:  'my sobriety rests upon me truthfully taking personal responsibility for everything.'

"In Your Entire Life, Did You Ever Tell a Lie to Get Out of Trouble?"

Sample answers:

A.  "Yes.  When I was growing up, I learned..."

This is a good answer.  "Yes" is the only truthful answer. 
Next note after we have "Yes" (+), we have the pronoun "I" (+) and we have the identification with growing up as the time period (+).  This is where the most influential instruction takes place within humans.  

B.  "I would be lying if I said no, for everyone has lied."

This is a common response. 

First, there is no "yes" to the answer. 
Note secondly, besides the pronoun "I", we have the inclusion of "others" (-) in the answer.  This is an unnecessary invitation to join a crowd.  

Lying causes internal stress and it is reduced, most always, by lying by omission.  Lying by omission takes less effort. 

Yet the internal stress is not always a conscience, but could be the stress of being caught.  In an intuitive reaction the person who said, "didn't do it", will later justify the lie by saying, "I never said I did not do it!" because the pronoun "I" was omitted.  

Much is used to determine the appropriateness of "I" versus "we", especially context. 

Is the person alone?

Is the topic something personal and close to the subject?

Is the topic something so personal and close that it triggers natural instinct, such as survival, or parenting?

Is the topic invasive?  

The need for guilt to 'spread around' itself and 'hide in a crowd' is discerned in analysis and often leads to uncovering criminal conspiracy, even if it is only two individuals.  

Here is an ancient mandate given to  Jews from the book of Exodus.  Watch its progression as it perfectly follows human nature. 

 Exodus first laid out the history changing "Ten Commandments" but then went to a detailed application of such laws.  The Ten Commandments established  and identified the success Western civilization as it recognized human nature, and put immediate restrictions upon it.  

The understanding of human nature is essential for deception detection.  

It is, in effect, to seek an answer to the "Why?" question in deception detection.  

Note how it begins simply:  

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.  You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.

Here it is broken down so that the progression may be followed:  

You shall not spread a false report. 

Today we have "fake news" that has taken propaganda and editorializing to an entirely new, and mostly uncharted (for the US) level.  

The first statement is straight forward, and addresses "you" (universal) only.  

The topic (context) is lying.  

It quickly moves to the plural.  "You" is now enjoined with another single individual:  

You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 

To "join hands" is to make an agreement.  The second person in the statement is identified by his 'norm'; he is a "wicked man."

Then note the agreement is regarding perjury, identifying the cause:

You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

The individual was already told not to be deceptive, but here, there is a 'pause' where the man prohibited is now told not not join with a "wicked man" (the character identified by norm or pattern). 

The question now is clear:  

Might this singular person (our subject) be one who does not spread a false report, but now possibly could due to the negative influence of another?  

The warning suggests that personal strength is weakened by the inappropriate presence of another.  Today its called "peer pressure" where kids do things they normally would not have had they remained distant from one who 'does' it.  

The Psychology of Mob Mentality 

This is a frightening topic.  If you have ever been even near a mob bent on destruction, it is a power that will literally feel contagious.  Even when a fight breaks out, there is a moment in time (evident even on video) where you wonder if the violence between two men will spread. 

As the crowd grows, so does the emboldened will to do violence.  People have reported having done things they never believed themselves capable of, simply due to the "mob mentality" that they often describe as "overtaken me", or "intoxicating, irresistible" and so on. 

We went from a singular prohibition, to the individual being influenced by another singular person to a crowd.  

The ancient text recognizes the powerful influence of being in a multitude:  

You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, 

The singular "you" has now "fallen in" and it is with "the many" which appeals to the human need to 'belong.'

The decline (fall) continues.  What he was once prohibited has now grown, exponentially.  

nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.

It makes it so much easier to justify when the 'strength' of the multitude or "the many" is present.  The individual feels helpless to resist and often falsely thinks, "I am alone" in a position of right. 

Here we often find the inappropriate use of the pronoun "we" when one should be speaking for himself.  

Dependent upon context and the analysis, it often points to guilt, or guilty knowledge, which the "one" wishes to reduce impact by being with others. 

It is easy to dismiss one due to narcissism, but reference point will often bring clarity.  

In the murder of one's wife and pre born child, in a home invasion, we have all of the elements of "up close and personal" in context. 

A wife belongs to one husband; not many.  
The child, it is presupposed, belongs to the one father, not many. 

Yet, continue the elevation of the context in a home invasion. 

The location of where we sleep is a place of great importance in the language: 

it is where we are most vulnerable and it is essential to survival that we sleep. 

A home invasion is intuitively personal.  

Liars lie because they have a reason to lie.  

A missing child is up close and personal and it is also under the category of human instinct.  

Lied to fulfil hatred of Christians and exploit money
Amanda Knox lied, not because she was "crazy" but because she had a need to lie.  She deliberately gave them the name of one she knew was innocent because of self preservation; to get herself out of trouble.  

Liars lie for a reason and their pronouns give themselves away.  Even personal hatred is often seen as a lesser priority when stacked against financial exploitation.  

"I have been assaulted." is what victims, fresh from the event, say.  It is personal.  It is up close.  It is who the person is:  it is "I" in the most basic of ways.   

"My wife has been violated.
My wife has been murdered.
My son has been murdered.
My home has been destroyed.
My life has been ruined.  
Will these monsters return for me and my son?
You must catch these killers before they get me, my son, or my neighbors, or anyone else..."

Would you expect someone to say,

"you've had your wife murdered" when it was his wife?

Baby Ayla was reported kidnapped by her father, Justin DiPietro, while he and others were staying at his mother's home.  The 'kidnapper' got in and out without waking a soul, nor leaving even trace DNA, and sought no contact with the family for ransom, nor did the father or grandmother attempt to negotiate for her return.  

What the father did do was fail his polygraph, however and his mother went on to say how "quiet" the house was that night; no partying, in fact, only to be found out:  she was not even in the home that night.  

"When someone is casing your house..." said Phoebe DiPietro, who could not linguistically claim that someone personally invaded her home and kidnapped her grandchild because she knew it was a lie. 

"You're waiting for the sheriff's office to call you."  

The use of "we" instead of "I" has an intuitive reason spoken by a person who knows how to use pronouns with 100% efficiency. 

The use of "you" instead of "I" or "me" has a reason, too, to employ distancing language. 

The internal stress of lying impacts sociopaths, too.  

Pronouns solve cases. 

Some estimate that as many as 80% of cold case files contain a "Confession By Pronoun" within them. 

Analysts are trained, very early on, to follow pronouns and then use  them in advanced work just as frequently.  

They are reliable and will guide us to truth.  

The need to share guilt, or hide in a crowd, is within human nature.  

Human nature does not change.  That which was identified thousands of years ago remain true today. 

Truth is not impacted by time.  

Language shifts, and we shift with it in our research.  We create new baselines for emails, texts and tweets, but wherever communication is presupposed; that is, the subject expects to be understood, we can detect deception.  


John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic.

Mccann statement in response to their losing their case against Dr Goncalo Amaral in the Portuguese Supreme Court.

Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann Regarding Portuguese Supreme Court Ruling

What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.

It is eight years since we brought the action and in that time the landscape has dramatically changed, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police-Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we've always wanted.

The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm.

We will, of course, be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.

Gerry and Kate

No mention at all on the BBC website, Sky have finally mentioned it.
The Sun broke the story long after it hit FB and the various blogs and forums
The rest of the media are now playing catch up.

I fully expect kate to be having a major meltdown as she loathes Dr. Amaral with every cell of her being.
Expect screaming and smashing of crockery and furniture as rages (much like she did when told she would be made arguido)

My concern is that will she have a breakdown and press the button she spoke of?
Right now, Chez rothley towers is going to be a tinderbox.
I fear for the health and safety of the twins

The could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, they would have their case ruled inadmissible since they open their family life to the media via interviews and 'leaked' stories as well as their mockumentary and the book.

Apart from the initial court victory, the mccanns have lost every appeal.
They are now liable not only to Dr. Amaral's court costs, they are also liable for their own for every court case and appeal.

Horse Chestnut said...

What about in cases when a person strongly admits telling a lie but then vacillates when asked for an example? Why admit telling a lie and then hedge about an example? Esp if there is freedom to pick anything from an entire lifetime. Have you come across this, or do you not ask for illustrations?

Anonymous said...

Horse Chestnut, you asked

"Why admit telling a lie and then hedge about an example?"

Um, because he or she is a liar. Why would you expect him or her to suddenly become truthful?

Could you explain what you mean when you say the person "strongly admitted" to telling a lie?

It seems you are saying that someone said to you "I absolutely have told a lie before."

Then you said "Give me an example" and the person said "No, I wont."

Is that what happened?

My guess is that the individual has probably told countless lies so feels they have to "give an inch" by saying "well sure I definitely have told a lie before...Im not perfect."

He or she doesnt want to give an example probably because they dont want to reveal what a giant liar they really are by revealing the nature of their lies.

I could be wrong, but this seems likely. If it wasnt a bad or harmful lie, why cant he or she provide an example?

Anonymous said...

@Horse Chestnut, Just my opinion, but if you are attempting to pry into whether someone is a liar and get info on what kind of lies they have told, its probably bc you know deep down they are a liar. At least in my life, I dont find myself wondering persistently if honest people are liars. The people Ive wondered if they are liars its due to repeated things that dont quite add up and that dont quite make sense, along with other elements like realizing the individual can be very selfish at times, etc. In other words, if a person is kind, and they are not often doing or saying things that dont quite add up, you probably wouldnt ask them "Hey are you a liar?"
In other words, just the fact that you wondered if the person is a liar and want to know exactly what kinds of lies they have told is a BAD SIGN. Unless you are the kind of person who just assumes everyone is a liar.

Anonymous said...

My ex hid a drug addiction from me for yrs Im pretty sure...many things you will find yourself thinking "why would he do that?" or "why would he say that", or even "that just doesnt sound quite right" or mixing stories together (recycling lies)....drug addicts are VERY good at lying. But if something doesnt sound quite right (from ANYONE) it's usually NOT. Someone who tells the truth, you just dont find yourself thinking about something they tell you "hmmmm. That doesnt sound right."
False accusations also...accusing you of being what they are...my ex one time screamed at me "Youre a drug addict!" for taking allergy medicine and then took off....stupid me I wondered "Why would he say that?"...well duh, it only took me yrs to figure out it was so he could start an argument so he could take off and go use drugs (thats what I think now anyway). But you find yourself thinking over and over "Why would he say that? I dont understand."
Look for leakage. Thats one clue. Liars will often "leak" what they are lying about.

Anonymous said...


What is the button that Kate spoke of? Thanks, Anonymous 50

Unknown said...

This is interesting. I have a friend whose estranged son is in a relationship with a girl she doesn't like and he can't accept it. Her son refuses to use the pronoun "I". It is always "we", which at times is appropriate, but not when asked "How are you feeling?" or "What do you think?". I get that it's distancing language, spreading the guilt, and also a passive agressive way to annoy his mother. There are many other psychological dynamics at play here as well. I'm curious to hear your opinion of the behavior of someone who almost exclusively uses we instead of I.

Anonymous said...

I would say with the son using "we" it could be to show unity with the wife. His first loyalty should be towards his wife, not his mother. It sounds kind of weird his mother asks him questions like "how do you feel?" "what do you think?"....he may feel uncomfortable answering these questions and use "we" as a buffer to these types of invasive questions.

Nic said...

tania and John,

You both must be feeling some level of satisfaction (jubilation ?) tonight. Madeleine herself is still lost, but at least some justice has come from this hopefully, final obstruct, er, judicial outcome.


Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...


What is the button that Kate spoke of? Thanks, Anonymous 50

Hi anonymous, (please choose a name)

Kate made a very concerning statement about pressing a button:

Kate said: “It really isn’t easy,” coping. “Some days are better than others. … There’s days when you think, ‘I can’t do this anymore,’ and you just want to press a button, and we’re all gone, and it’s all finished, and we’re all together and gone. Wherever. But you can’t, you know. Just occasionally you’ll have a — if you’re having a really bad day, which we do. And you can’t help but think that.”

What she was implying was that she would press a button which would kill herself, her young children (the twins, Sean and Amelie) and gerry.


The Key word that stuck out to me was the word ALL

If Maddie was alive as they claimed, then she just committed murder-suicide and made Maddie an orphan.
They could only ALL be together if she knew Maddie was dead.

Her language and possible futute actions are not that of an innocent parent, after all why would an innocent parent kill herself, her children and her husband if she knew or believed her missing child was still alive?

However, A guilty parent would and could consider such action if they knew said missing child was dead and they were being eaten up by guilt and a fear of the consequences.
They could and would consider murder-suicide as an escape route, that they would spare their family the suffering of seeing said parent in jail, the knowledge their missing sibling/child was a victim of said parent, the shame and guilt by association and the belief they would all be reunited in their heaven.
Murder-suicide to escape guilt and punishment and also as an altruistic reason to prevent the family suffering.

We saw this behavior with josh powell when he murdered his two sons with an ax immediately prior to him blowing himself and them up.

He was suspected of the murder of his missing wife and had lost custody of his two sons to his missing wife's parents.
He was also due to face a psychosexual evaluation as he attempted to get custody of his sons.


Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Nic, Yes.

I cracked open a mini bottle of echo falls white zinfandel and made a toast to Dr. Amaral.

It was nearly a bottle of my Hungarian Mundana but i would then have ended up drinking the whole bottle. It is an amazing wine, aging beautifully.

I am now hoping Dr. Amaral will sue the mccanns.

As it stands, the mccanns now have to pay not only all their legal costs for the various suits they have bought and the appeals, they now have to pay the legal costs of all the defendants in cases the plaintiffs (mccanns lost)
We are talking at least 6 figures here, money they do not have.
They may try and use the fund, which would explain why it was moved to a new 'investment' account.
The fund to which people donated in order to find Maddie but which can also be used to help the family according to the fund rules.

If they can't get it (i expect uproar if they do from the public and uproar from the mccanns if the board says no)then they will have to sell the house.
I am also expecting them to put the begging bowl out asking for donations to either fund yet another appeal to the ECHR which will be ruled inadmissible or will fail)or to help them avoid selling the house (will no one think of the children)or whatever reason they decide.

Perhaps a new book detailing the trials and tribulations they have faced?

It is also delightful news knowing the mccanns earlier on tried to offer Dr. Amaral money to drop the case (his appeal)

It is almost unheard of for the plaintiff to offer to come to a deal in order for the case to be dropped.
Normally it is the defendant who makes an off in order for the case to be dropped.

Right then, when the news leaked out, i and many others knew the mccanns would lose and the mccanns also knew as well.
They had been advised preciously by their lawyers when they lost the original appeal, they would lose the next one, but i suspect kate's intense loathing of Dr. Amaral forced her to continue the appeals process despite all the advice telling her not to.
Her hatred just consumed her so much, she could forgive the alleged paedophile abductor but not the man who was trying to find Maddie.

I expect in the mccann household right now, it is a tinderbox, kate would have had a meltdown having been denied yet again.
I expect smashed crockery, maybe damaged furniture as kate lashes out in fury.

My concern right now is the safety of the twins, that kate might carry out her publicly spoken wish to press a button.

I also wonder if this will cause kate to have a mental breakdown.
Will this be the straw that breaks the camels back and we learn what happened?

Anonymous said...

Sorry for being off-topic again.

A couple of days ago I submitted a comment about a father (Tony Hakin) speaking at the funeral of his 10 year old daughter (Thalia) in Melbourne. His eulogy is within a video that is available online (http://www.mck.org.au/recordings/1485306000000_16222) starting at 52:00 and lasting less than 10 minutes.

You kindly responded and said you woulod take a look at it if you could find the time. I know you prefer a transcript therefore I have transcribed what he says, which took far longer than I had anticipated as I had to include all stutters, etc. accurately.

I hope you don't mind but I have copied what i transcribed and will copy it into a separate comment. Below is a brief introduction. Even if you cannot find the time to analyse it then I would welcome the observations of anyone else that would like to analyse it.

I look forward to hearing from you if you can manage to have a look at it.


Below is the transcript of the eulogy given by Tony Harkin (mid 50’s) on Wednesday 25 January at the funeral of his daughter Thalia (aged 10). According to news reports Thalia was killed when hit by a car on the pavement/ sidewalk of Bourke Street in Melbourne on Friday 20 January, where she died at the scene.

Tony’s wife (Nathalie) and his 9 year-old daughter (Maggie) were also struck by the car and injured. Maggie suffered a broken left leg and attended the funeral in a wheelchair. Nathalie’s injuries have not been reported and was still in hospital so did not attend the funeral.

News reports state that the driver allegedly drove for over 3 blocks on the pavement/ sidewalk, hitting many pedestrians. The latest reports are that 6 people died (including Thalia) and over 20 were injured.

The transcript is from the video of the Jewish service lasting approx. 80 minutes. Tony starts to speak at 52:00 for approx. 9 minutes. The video shows that he has notes to which he occasionally refers.

Anonymous said...


You have to forgive me because I guess up until about 3 o’clock this morning…Ehm…Natalie was not in a state to recognise the fact that Thalia passed away. A lot of preparation for the funeral and that kind of stuff had to be done kind of behind her back but I’m also staying with her the whole time so it’s been quite hard, it’s been quite complicated.
[Unknown Jewish word] this morning, Nathalie woke up and she goes “I know what happened. Some maniac went and hurt my family and I don’t know how to deal with it. Sh-sh-she took my little angel.”

So I’ve tried to put some words together, I guess that my trouble is that I really don’t have a way to describe Thalia. She was something special to everybody that ever met her. Ehm…she exuded kindness and she was a very pretty girl. She was pretty inside and pretty on the outside. And in her eyes you could see the prettiness.

When I…when Thalia was…before Thalia was born, we used to go to [unrecognisable word], we used to go to places where they used to have music. Nathalie used to complain that the kid kept kicking whilst the music was on.

Thalia wanted to be part of life. Thalia never wanted to stop being part of life. When she was born, she came…out..sh…Nathalie had a C-section, there was no bruising on the baby. The baby came out perfect. It was a beautiful baby, it had the beautiful piercing blue eyes with the…ehm…with the background of…ehm…black. J-j- just captured you, it was like piercing your sole every time she looked at you.

And everybody in the hospital ward used to call her their little princess, they used to call her ‘the Jewish little princess’ because they knew we were Jewish.

And..ehm..I guess th-the most…if I really want to go with the burning memory. I had a little girl and..ehm… she didn’t want to go to sleep. The-the trouble is she always wanted to be part of life and the result was I used to take her out in the car, go driving around Adelaide, round Prospect, half an hour, 10 minutes, 20 minutes depending upon how she felt. And [unrecognisable word] I’d look back in the window and I’d see these beautiful blue eyes with a cheeky look in them turning around and saying ‘hmm you think you’ve got me haven’t you’ and the answers no I haven’t’.

[Deep long sigh] I’m not going to apologise. Look I can’t say enough about Thalia. Ehm…I-I don’t know how to. It’s the one thing is that I’ve to basically had to deal with, more with what was going on up around me and I’ve never had time to pre-prepare to say what I really think about Thalia. I never expected this.



Anonymous said...


At one-thirty in the afternoon, two, two o’clock, Maggie, I don’t know what time it was, I got a phone call from m-my little girl, 9 year old, and she’s going “Daddy, some maniac” or some idiot, was it some idiot? Yeah [looking at notes] I think it was some idiot…”has just run over my leg and he’s broken it and he’s run over my toe”. And I’m going “Maggie, where’s your mum?” And she’s going “my mum’s on the ground and people are looking after her”. And then I go “OK, well where’s Thalia?” and I’m not getting any answer from her and at that point in time I got that sickly feeling that you get when something’s going wrong.

So I run out of my office, which is in Flinders Lane, and I’m coming up William Street up to Bourke Street and I’m thinking, you know, this-this has been a hit and run, some idiot has gone up and done something stupid.

But they’d blocked off the whole of Bourke Street and I can’t get in and I’m frantic, I’m trying to work out, you know, where my family is. I’ve been told my sist…my daughter has been hit by a car and the other one’s…my wife’s lying in the…you know, being looked after by para-paramedics and I don’t know where the other one is.

So they’ve dragged me in through f..it's taken time, they’ve dragged me in through the…and I see Maggie and Maggie is sitting up. She’s got a broken leg. People off the street have come off and helped. It wasn’t just paramedics. It wasn’t volunteers. They were your average Joe Bloggs, some of them didn’t have training and they’d come and they’d helped.

And Maggie was being helped by about six people. And one of them had gone off on-on Maggie’s request and that they told me that she had insisted upon it. ‘I want to talk to my dad because my mum can’t cope’. And she’s gone off, she’s grabbed the phone and she’s-she’s basically alerted me to what had happened. And the bravery of the kid, you know, I can’t imagine – I could never do that as a 9 year old. That’s just beyond me.

But [sigh], in all of this I can’t find Thalia. And there’s a blanket lying on the ground over on the side and there’s blood coming out from it. And..ehm..I’m going…they’re going look there’s a 10 year old girl there it may be yours, we just need you to tell us what clothes she was wearing. And I’m going “I don’t know what clothes she’s wearing, you know I’m-I’m absolutely off my face I don’t know where my little girl is.”

And they’re saying “well, have you got a picture of her” so I try to pull out a picture but I can’t think straight. So I pulled out a very blurry picture but I’m not getting anything either.

But I g-guess in all of this Maggie was actually very very lucky. She was kind of behind where Thalia and Nathalie were and..erm..she was able to see the car coming and double back. Thalia copped the full brunt of it and basically, I think she fairly much died instantly. I don’t think she would have known very much about it. She had brain haemorrhaging.


Anonymous said...


And that was from a beautiful baby whose face was, you know, it lit up the world. The kindness in her-in her-in her-in her nature came out in her face.

We named the little girl, when she was born, two names. We gave her a Hebrew name and an English name. And according to Jewish-Jewish tradition, the name you give a kid is prophetic in how the kid’s going to turn out. We named her Sarah and Sarah was-was the wife of Avraham, whose trait was kindness; whose trait was a giving type of personality. And Thalia exuded that.

Thalia was a kind kid. She never ever ever wanted to hate people. Her biggest beef was the guy that was running down that street with a car. That was pure hatred. That was the antithesis of what Thalia was all about.

And that, you know, that was, you know, basically what I took from Thalia. Thalia’s passing on was only the result of something that was pure evil because that was the only thing that could take her.

And I’ve lost a little girl, she’s 10 years old and it’s like my family has 2 legs, a right leg and a left leg. The left leg is Maggie and the right leg is Thalia and now I’m hobbling along on one leg and it had to be the leg that I leant,I lead on. And now I need to lead on the other leg and I’m expecting Maggie to step up to it. She’s a beautiful girl. She’s lost her sister. I don’t know how she is coping with it but she’s been very very brave. Her sister will be proud of her.

As for her sister, I don’t think I could’ve been more proud of that little girl. From the day she was born until the day she died, is that girl gave me pride, it gave me joy.
Her name Thalia, I used to explain to her in Hebrew it means…Thal means dew, it’s the morning water that g…you know, gives sustenance during the summer… the spring to allow the grass to grow when there’s no rain. And ia is Hashin’s [foreign word] name. So we called her, I explained to her that your our dew from heaven. And that’s what she was in our lives. And we’ve lost that and we’ll never make up for that.

And…[Long Pause]…I guess I, look I don’t have any more words to say. Nathalie told me that, you know, she’s a little butterfly is it that…when we were at shul, Rabi Engal used to use the-th-the music associated with Errashoshaneen and Thalia used to move in her stomach to it. When she was actually born and we were trying to get the baby to sleep, that’s how we used to do it – we used to sing Errashoshaneen and she used to go to sleep.

She was an amazing kid and I’m really lost for words. I’m really really sorry that Nathalie can’t be here…ehm…I know that she wanted to be. You know, she actually became cognitive of wanting to be, just before it happened and it was very very hard to do this. And…ehm…Nathalie would have wanted to say stuff about her, I guess, she’s tried to convey top me, she gave me some points, I guess, that she was a little butterfly. That she was the light in her like, like everybody else said.

[Next part contains some Jewish words and expressions and was hard to decipher. Apologies to any Jewish people for me not knowing the words/ expressions used; and for the incorrect spelling.]

Is that she had ahbab Israel [??]. That was her trait, ahbab Israel, it was an unconditional type. She was the antithesis of Synnoch Himman [??] and Synnoch himman is what keeps us im gollas [??]. And if people take that on board and they do a nice deed each day to each other then they have honoured Thalia. And I want them to do that please.


Marliese said...

I'm curious, Max, as to why you want this analyzed. He sounds out of his mind with grief and shock to me. What are we supposed to be looking for?

Anonymous said...

Canadian government cover up?


Anonymous said...


You said:

"I'm curious, Max, as to why you want this analyzed. He sounds out of his mind with grief and shock to me. What are we supposed to be looking for?"

I have only recently taken an interest in statement analysis so I may be completely wrong but I thought one of the concepts was to effectively start with a blank canvas (without any preconceived notions or influences) and let the statement speak for itself.

However, if you are wondering why I was interested in an expert (or amateur who knows better than me) doing an analysis was because whenever I saw what he said (and how he conducted himself), I was immediately struck by how bizarre it was. I know grief can affect everyone differently but I've never seen the close relative of a loved one act like this.

The eldest teenage son of a close friend of mine was hit and killed by a truck and he was beside himself with grief at the funeral. Understandably, he did not wish to discuss the accident when it was so raw and all he wanted to speak about were his son's attributes and the good memories that he had with his son.

This father devotes a significant proportion of his speech giving a detailed account of what happened to his daughters (and wife) on the fateful day. Putting aside how bizarre it is to speak about how a person has actually died (at a funeral), the detail he goes into appears to be way beyond that required to "set the scene" for the congregation. Its like he is giving a statement to the police; and alibi building.

Also, apart from speaking about his daughter around the time of her birth (in the womb and when a very young baby who wouldn't sleep) he says absolutely nothing specific that would suggest that he knows anything about her subsequent 10 years. What are her features, personality and characteristics? What was she like growing up? His burning memory is driving her around in the back of his car to get her to go to sleep!

It's as if his daughter died whilst still a young baby. He feels it necessary to disclose she was not bruised when she was born. Also her not sleeping is immediately followed by a reference to trouble.

He speaks about her a lot in the past tense yet the funeral was only 5 days after the incident; and from what he says he does not sound like he has had time to process her passing to use the past tense so regularly. He also uses distancing language a lot and refers to her as "the...", "that..." and even "it".

These are just some of things that I found peculiar and hence why I was interested in what someone like Peter would make of it. Hopefully this helps answering your query.


Anonymous said...

Hi Tania,

I'm Anonymous 50. (I'll comment as Sandee if no one else has picked that name). Thanks for your "pressing the button" explanation. It does sound very concerning.


Anonymous said...


Thanks for posting that video. I decided they were covering it up based on the fact ACTUAL MUSLIMS said the shooters were yelling "Allahu Akhbar!" Plus, it is an ISIS style attack.
On facebook, I refer to the shooting as done by ISIS, because it was. Canada DROPPED the original narrative. What reason would people in a MOSQUE have to lie about the shooters yelling Allahu Akhbar?!
I just assume it was ISIS and that is how I discuss the shooting on facebook. I dont even say "there must be a cover-up"....I just state that it was done by ISIS.
The white guy they have under arrest...a supposed Trump supporter who yelled Allahu Alhbar....yeah OK...you believe that you'll believe anything. If he did do the shooting, he did it for ISIS. Some Puerto Rican guy just got arrested I think down in FL for being with ISIS.

Marliese said...

Sorry Max. I'm very new here too and I see what you're saying about the detailed description he gives about the accident. I'll be looking forward to seeing what the others have to say.

Tania Cadogan said...

HI Sandee, it's a pleasure to meet you.
Welcome aboard :)

Anonymous said...

Those 2 deceivers look unwashed.

Sandee said...

Thank you for welcoming me aboard. I think it will be a pleasant stay here :)

I am eager to learn; I am even more eager work cooperatively with other investigators here.

Maybe said...

Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann Regarding Portuguese Supreme Court Ruling.

I find it interesting that they say, "the landscape has dramatically changed. I wonder if that is leakage, because where they buried herhas changed so much,

Anonymous said...

I think it could definitely be that they are "leaking". That is an astute observation that you followed up with that here. Thank you for sharing and caring.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

They're not going to find her, only going to "search."

LC said...

Max -
It seems like this father is truly shaken and stumbling over his own words whilst trying to include his wife's sentiments. His use of 'it' and 'the' could be due to interruptions in his train of thought, as fragments of the observances he wanted to mention.
I gathered that he was trying to show that Thalia had responded to the same spiritual music from womb to death.